View Full Version : Quality of games
edyzmedieval
05-27-2010, 00:35
Anyone feel the quality of games is going downhill?
I played TF2 after 2 years and I found it's so boring, only focused on getting those achievements just to show how cool you are. Sure, some might disagree, but we can take the example of games like Empire TW where not only it's been a bugged game, but the wow factor and the replayability that kept you for hours in front of the monitor in games such as Medieval TW goes away extremely quickly. They lack the substance old games have, now it's all about unlockables, DLC packs, ranks and just to show how cool you are to the rest of the world.
Games are meant to be enjoyed, not to be made a damn competition.
Jeez, I miss the old gaming times. Medieval TW was and still is a benchmark of amazing games.
Anyone else feeling the same?
I agree. I spent (wasted) hours playing STW, in all it's simplicity, depite being far inferior to RTW and onward. The hours I put into RTW and onward pale in comparison to STW and MTW. Deus Ex, however crappy the graphics may be, the game had so much depth and fun, replayability, that I would forsake other responsibily just to sit down there and play a few hours. FPS now are so hollow and linear, despite the flashy graphics and physics (rag doll anyone? :P), I just can't enjoy them as much as Deus Ex. Older games during the early years of PC gaming were far more fun than alot of stuff out there. Anyone play the Pirates! remake? After playing the original, I was somewhat dissapointed regareding the new and improved version. Mini-games?! YUCK! I could go on, but it would take forever to quote all the old games I played that far surpass the current ones. I don't even play video games much anymore. Don't even get me started about the flat console genre. All in all, old-school trumps the new.
Hooahguy
05-27-2010, 00:50
i think it also has to do with the rise of the MP aspect of games. even five years ago MP wasnt as popular as it is now.
so this shift to MP naturally brings a sense of competitiveness in playing. who would want to play MP if there was no sense of prestige for being good?
PanzerJaeger
05-27-2010, 01:07
Anyone feel the quality of games is going downhill?
I played TF2 after 2 years and I found it's so boring, only focused on getting those achievements just to show how cool you are. Sure, some might disagree, but we can take the example of games like Empire TW where not only it's been a bugged game, but the wow factor and the replayability that kept you for hours in front of the monitor in games such as Medieval TW goes away extremely quickly. They lack the substance old games have, now it's all about unlockables, DLC packs, ranks and just to show how cool you are to the rest of the world.
Games are meant to be enjoyed, not to be made a damn competition.
Jeez, I miss the old gaming times. Medieval TW was and still is a benchmark of amazing games.
Anyone else feeling the same?
Totally agree. Every "new generation" of the games I used to love has sucked. The Total War series, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Medal of Honor. Everything.
The primary reason is the ongoing quest for a greater and greater market. When you try to make something appeal to everyone, it ends up not appealing to any one on anything deeper than a topical level.
My only hope is Red Orchestra: Heroes of Stalingrad. Tripwire seems to be going the opposite direction, making the game more specific and more detailed. Hopefully smaller studios like Tripwire and Paradox will continue to do their thing.
Alexander the Pretty Good
05-27-2010, 03:08
TF2 has a quality problem?
What?
Azathoth
05-27-2010, 10:54
Oh please.
Deus Ex, however crappy the graphics may be, the game had so much depth and fun, replayability, that I would forsake other responsibily just to sit down there and play a few hours. FPS now are so hollow and linear, despite the flashy graphics and physics (rag doll anyone? :P), I just can't enjoy them as much as Deus Ex.
You're a bunch of pretentious old men playing at running the world. But the world left you behind long ago. We are the future. :sweatdrop:
"One of the sturdiest precepts of the study of human delusion is that every golden age is either past or in the offing."
edyzmedieval
05-27-2010, 11:14
TF2 has a quality problem?
What?
Yes, it does. They started the whole "achievement rush" and many ppl are playing it just to get those achievements.
I did feel like there was a quality problem in the industry in the early 2000s, but I've felt like there's been a noticable improvement over the past 5 years or so.
"One of the sturdiest precepts of the study of human delusion is that every golden age is either past or in the offing."
Ah, reckless youth. Things nowadays things seem to be made faster, and with less care. Hence use of poorer materials and less care in manufacture, product of less quality. It's true with most about everything. In my day, that wasn't quite so common. The addage you get what you pay for isn't quite applicable in such cases as well. But I'm not as old as some people. So don't quote me on that. ;)
Veho Nex
05-27-2010, 16:16
Games are definately going down hill. If it wasn't for the thousands of man hours they put into making the graphics and multi player as flashy as ever then we'd have some great games on the market. unfortunately game companies dont see it that way, best multi player for 2010 is $$$$ in their eyes
al Roumi
05-27-2010, 16:27
I remember getting all excited when Alpha Centauri and Baldur's Gate 2 were released, thinking games were all now of such amazing quality...
I think there certainly is some truth in the idea that multiplayer has had a bad effect on singleplayer experiences. I've always been more into PC games than console because, well, I'm a complete hopeless case of nerd and consoles games are just too accessible or simple -so yes I've not been too impressed with console porting (with the notable exception of the exellent GTA series).
There are also very few "new" games. Most releases these days seem to be XXXXXX 2, 5 or 17. That said, there was a frogger 2 and prince of persia 3 (if not more) just on the PC...
Being on the stardock Elemental beta, I've been enjoying the accessible and consultative approach the developers have to their game -which is refreshing and engaging -as it was with M&B. Stardock have been speaking about the dearth of innovation and focus on evolution too (http://forums.elementalgame.com/382811), I'm not going to get too excited about Elemental yet though...
Lets be honest, back in the "good old days" there were loads of terrible games, it's just that everyone remembers their favourites, like with music. There are still good games being made today, but when compared to the accumulation of all your favourites over the last 30 odd years it pales in comparison.
That said however, with improved graphics there does seem to be more of an overall push towards games that are pretty but lack substance. Also the big games have massive budgets, and no-one wants to risk making a flop so they stick with something that has proven to work, and thus it often feels like you are just replaying "X" game.
gaelic cowboy
05-27-2010, 17:27
The other problem now is advertising which basically fools a lot of people to buy a certain game, back in the day there was no advertising of games on tv unlike now. Nowadays it's different mass media communication game websites etc the only way I knew a game was coming out was if Amstrad Action ran a feature or summit like that.
I have read some studies which seem to say that an increase in the advertising budget for a game will pay off more in sales than spending money patching a game or improving the gameplay this may be part of the problem.
Alexander the Pretty Good
05-27-2010, 17:29
Yes, it does. They started the whole "achievement rush" and many ppl are playing it just to get those achievements.
Not only does that have nothing to do with the quality of the game, but I doubt you can even prove that. The people I play TF2 with certainly emjoy earning achievements when it happens but are not playing just to get them. And even if they were, that is completely unrelated to the quality of the game.
Maybe this should be titled "I don't like achievements" and TF2 might have some relevence in the discussion, but TF2 was high quality when it was released and has enjoyed some of the best support from its developers that a game could ever hope to have.
Maybe this should be titled "I don't like achievements"
I wouldn't say it's all that, it's just that many games seemed rushed and lack the content of depth and interactibility of earlier games. Rushed out with nothing but flash and eye candy. I certainly would not want to knock the MP community with all it's close-knitted players and sense of enjoyable competativness. Some think that MP is what is keeping PC gaming alive. It would be a shame however, if PC gaming went all MP and there was no longer any effort and commitment put toward quality, entertaining SP experiences. I just thing console SP is quite inferior to what I have enjoyed in the past with PC SP titles.
gaelic cowboy
05-27-2010, 17:43
Maybe this should be titled "I don't like achievements" and TF2 might have some relevence in the discussion, but TF2 was high quality when it was released and has enjoyed some of the best support from its developers that a game could ever hope to have.
Achievements have been with games a long time Space Invaders anyone??? the only difference is nowadays with windows live and xboxlive it's become an actual requirement by games companies like microsof etc.
Gamers really should ask does getting 200 kills with each weapon in mass effect really add to the game or am I being codded into hanging on to the game to prevent it turning up in a bargain bin to shore up price.
Alexander the Pretty Good
05-27-2010, 18:40
Gamers really should ask does getting 200 kills with each weapon in mass effect really add to the game or am I being codded into hanging on to the game to prevent it turning up in a bargain bin to shore up price.
I didn't even know the first ME even had achievements until after my friend played it and asked how many I had gotten on my playthrough. So I think you guys are bringing up all the wrong examples to make your arguments.
All that said, I might agree that (with a few exceptions) games from major publishers/development houses are declining in quality (which I think is a distinctly separate issue from a supposed obsession with achievements in games). However, we're seeing I think a proportional increase in the amount and quality of games created by smaller or independent developers and those focusing on a specific niche market. I don't really care if the next seven installments of Call of Duty are all terrible or if the rest of the Total War games from here on out are dedicated solely to collecting achievements. I have lots of options for gaming outside of them, with publishers like Paradox and Stardock supporting niche games, and indies like the people in the UK trying to make a proper X-COM sequel. And even then there are major publishers/development houses like BioWare and Valve I can look to for high-quality games and top-notch support.
I think miotas hit the nail on the head - the good old days only seem that way because we don't remember the failures, except maybe for Daikatana.
Lets be honest, back in the "good old days" there were loads of terrible games, it's just that everyone remembers their favourites, like with music. There are still good games being made today, but when compared to the accumulation of all your favourites over the last 30 odd years it pales in comparison.
That said however, with improved graphics there does seem to be more of an overall push towards games that are pretty but lack substance. Also the big games have massive budgets, and no-one wants to risk making a flop so they stick with something that has proven to work, and thus it often feels like you are just replaying "X" game.
I think that's very true for 'bugs' as well. When I first started playing computer games, bugs were permanent. There were no patches, period. If you found a bug, you had to live with it and work around it the best you could. In rare cases, an expansion pack might fix some major bugs in the original release. Most games now get patches so frequently that it's just a question of when a bug will be fixed not if. Some developers are better with bugs than others, of course, but in general I think gaming has benefitted a huge amount from patching via digital distribution.
Meneldil
05-27-2010, 19:46
I did feel like there was a quality problem in the industry in the early 2000s, but I've felt like there's been a noticable improvement over the past 5 years or so.
I'd agree with that, if it weren't for the whole "let's rip the consummer off with expensive crappy DLC's, ruin his fun with intrusive DRM, pretend he's a thief and a liar and generally act as complete jerks" mindset most video game companies seem to show lately.
Overall, except for a few original games such as Mass Effect, the rest is just recycling old stuff and making it less interesting.
Lets be honest, back in the "good old days" there were loads of terrible games, it's just that everyone remembers their favourites, like with music. There are still good games being made today, but when compared to the accumulation of all your favourites over the last 30 odd years it pales in comparison.
That'd be a valid argument if and only if any modern game turn me into a complete mindless fan. As Baldur's Gate, or Warcraft 2, or Total Annihilation, or MTW, or Age of Empires did.
Right now, when I play a game, my feelings vary from "Meh" (most strategy games and FPS) to "Pretty cool" (Mass Effect, Europa Universalis, M&B). There's no "ZOMGWTFBBQ" factor anymore. Games have no charm. There was probably more terrible games in the past (but there was also much more games released overall), but the good games were trully brilliant. As opposed to simply being "pretty good".
The only game that got me hooked to my computer lately was... World of Warcraft, released in 2001 (IIRC). And it was probably more because it's addictive than because it's trully good.
Most newer games just don't have it. Lack of ideas, no replayability, DLC nickel and diming, endless sequels, lowered difficulty, too much focus on graphics, bad console ports.
Of course, when Duke Nukem Forever gets released, we will all be eating our words. :yes:
Azathoth
05-28-2010, 04:04
You are all allowing nostalgia to cloud your judgement.
You are all allowing nostalgia to cloud your judgement.
Get off my lawn.
Azathoth
05-28-2010, 09:50
Get off my lawn.
First stop stealing my ball.
edyzmedieval
05-28-2010, 11:09
Not only does that have nothing to do with the quality of the game, but I doubt you can even prove that. The people I play TF2 with certainly emjoy earning achievements when it happens but are not playing just to get them. And even if they were, that is completely unrelated to the quality of the game.
Maybe this should be titled "I don't like achievements" and TF2 might have some relevence in the discussion, but TF2 was high quality when it was released and has enjoyed some of the best support from its developers that a game could ever hope to have.
Yes it does affect the quality of the game - the game is focused on those achievements rather than enjoying it for pure fun. I cannot doubt the fact that TF2 is probably the most supported game in history, the amount of bug fixes and content it received is just incredible, but still, despite that, the gimmicks and other goodies are meant to keep you playing and not throw it away. Look at Counter Strike, a simple team game... Nobody needed achievements, and it's still one of the most played games even after what, 6-7 years?
Ok, they ruined it now with the Counter Strike Beta, but that's a different story.
What I'm talking about is the immersion factor, the "wow" factor, the replayability, the quality of the game, the substance it has... I don't think you can really compare games like Modern Warfare 2 with some old shooters, or perhaps the last Age of Empires with Age of Empires 2 which was absolutely brilliant and which I still play this day.
My opinion, but still, I see that the "super duper coolness" of the old games that had massive amounts of content and serious substance is now gone. MW2 is the best example for this.
Take it the extreme: play a roguelike. :2thumbsup:
That said however, with improved graphics there does seem to be more of an overall push towards games that are pretty but lack substance. Also the big games have massive budgets, and no-one wants to risk making a flop so they stick with something that has proven to work, and thus it often feels like you are just replaying "X" game.
True.
gaelic cowboy
05-28-2010, 14:42
When I read that there were achievements in Heavy Rain and that they were insisted upon by the large developers it pretty much made up my mind that the achievement lark has run away with it self.
Alexander the Pretty Good
05-28-2010, 15:51
the game is focused on those achievements rather than enjoying it for pure fun
That's a ridiculous position to take - think of all the content that's released unrelated to achievements. Which is most of it. How much gameplay revolves around getting achievements? For most players, roughly zero. I think you need to lighten up and not let other people enjoying achievements ruin your enjoyment of gameplay unrelated to achievements.
edyzmedieval
05-28-2010, 22:43
That's a ridiculous position to take - think of all the content that's released unrelated to achievements. Which is most of it. How much gameplay revolves around getting achievements? For most players, roughly zero. I think you need to lighten up and not let other people enjoying achievements ruin your enjoyment of gameplay unrelated to achievements.
Oh come on, how is that ridiculous? Ok, fine, leave the achievements out - what is your idea of a quality game?
I'm just pointing out the fact that having achievements and unlockables has taken out the whole "substance" of the game, the aim is not to have fun, but to show off how good you are. And how pretty those badges look on you!
Yes, it does. They started the whole "achievement rush" and many ppl are playing it just to get those achievements.
You're playing on the wrong servers then, or just haven't played recently. New weapons are no longer tied into the achievements and now drop on a random basis, the only thing that folks "grind" for now are the hats which offer aesthetic changes only. Most servers have plug ins that reward all hats if you donate to them.
I'm just pointing out the fact that having achievements and unlockables has taken out the whole "substance" of the game, the aim is not to have fun, but to show off how good you are. And how pretty those badges look on you!
For some people that IS the fun of the game. Any MMO player can tell you that putting time into and getting a nice shiny badge is something to be proud of. The badges and hats are a way to say "Yeah, i've played tf2 for [time], I really like this game." But I don't think you should let it ruin your fun. The game is still focused around team oriented combat and is still pretty fun to this day. You shouldn't let the fact the heavy has Elvis hair get you down imho, you should hit him in the face with a rocket launcher.
Oh come on, how is that ridiculous? Ok, fine, leave the achievements out - what is your idea of a quality game?
Memorable gameplay - something that works, a mechanic that the game is built upon that lets you interact with other players or the world around you. It could be the Portal gun from Portal or battle to survive in L4D. Whatever it is, it needs to be fun.
Eye pleasing graphics - They dont need to be state of the art, but I like my games to be pleasing to the eye. This is the year 2010 and I expect that any game i spend money on to not be hideous to look at. Even if the graphics consits of a risk-style map, it should be a well done risk-styled map.
Sound - Gun blasts, explosions, and music. It all needs to come together in some way, shape or form to enhance the experience. If the sound does not work with the visuals to convey meaning, emotion or weight then the overall experience suffers. Nearly every game of quality nails this down in spades. Even some terrible games have given birth to beautiful soundtracks.
Story - This is one that is the easy mis-step for many games and its often the hardest one to nail down, but a believable story or fun narrative are what give meaning to your game time. The gameplay might be shooting people in the face, but the story is the reason. Lacking a story, a good setting suffices. Left 4 Dead manages that, instead of giving you a story it instead gives you a character piece. Four humans out to survive, interacting with each other and a world that is out to kill them all.
I think in most cases(but not all) it is not about the games getting worse but the players getting older. I got my first home computer(C64) when I was eleven. Today I am thirtyfive. Games simply can't impress me as easily as they did when I was an eleven year old boy.
Games simply can't impress me as easily as they did when I was an eleven year old boy.
This might indeed become a trend with some. Now that I think about it, it is quite true regarding my situation. It will be said, some day, by even the young whipersnappers who have posted within this thread, that back in my day, I played such games as [insert current game here] and the new games of today do not live up to the standards of the ones I played while young. This comment being applicable to the hieght of your gaming experience which might indeed have been when you were young. Oh, the fun I used to have with 4 - 25 cent tokens and a bedroom filled with NES titles!
Veho Nex
05-29-2010, 18:03
I think the first true game I ever owned must have been duke nukem 64 or Golden Eye for the N64. No game I've played yet beats those memories. I think you guys might be right.
a completely inoffensive name
05-29-2010, 21:43
We can't say whether or not quality of games have gone downhill or uphill.
1. We selectively choose to ignore the failures of the past and remember only the good ones, which imparts a nostalgia effect.
2. There is an inherent risk in complexity which makes such judging difficult since the more complicated a game is the easier it is for one component to screw up an entire delicately created system. An example of this is the inventory system in the first Mass Effect that didnt stack/group items but just left everything in one big super long, repetitive list. It killed the want to get more loot since it became annoying.
3. The industry is based inherently around technology, and is changing at roughly the same exponential rate that computer technology is. New abilities for developers are present that were never around just 5-10 years ago. The 10th anniversary of Perfect Dark on N64 was a week ago, you can't even jump in the game. The improvements in graphics are taking resources away from other aspects because graphics are more rapidly evolving then other aspects of game play from technology. If technology became stagnant today, then a shift toward the best story and game play would occur because graphically everyone would hit an equalizing level.
tl;dr: Everyone is biased and the industry is changing so rapidly from new technological improvements that developers probably are not trying to make crappier games, they are just always having to combat the rapid flow of the gaming river when making a game with a solid foundation that people love. Perfect example: Duke Nukem Forever, always being postponed to upgrade to the next graphical engine, the next generation of consoles, the next whatever. Then they ran out of money and had nothing to show for it.
Perhaps new ideas are hard to come by nowadays. Redundancy and repetitions seem to be quite common. How many WWII FPSs do we need? Sequels seem the way to go.
pevergreen
05-30-2010, 02:53
Perhaps new ideas are hard to come by nowadays. Redundancy and repetitions seem to be quite common. How many WWII FPSs do we need? Sequels seem the way to go.
To a point, yes.
But it really isnt that hard to come up with a new story. Plently of existing material out there.
No idea what you guys are talking about, I almost miss the days of limited choice. There is such a wealth of quality nowadays. Take your favorite old game and ask yourselve what else was there at the time. These games are one of a kind a rare gem. Gaming as a whole is soooooooooooooooooo much better.
No idea what you guys are talking about, I almost miss the days of limited choice. There is such a wealth of quality nowadays. Take your favorite old game and ask yourselve what else was there at the time. These games are one of a kind a rare gem. Gaming as a whole is soooooooooooooooooo much better.
Which is to say nothing of the Indie scene that practically exploded a couple years back with a wealth of quality games for very modest prices. It's a great time to be a gamer.
Perhaps new ideas are hard to come by nowadays. Redundancy and repetitions seem to be quite common. How many WWII FPSs do we need? Sequels seem the way to go
I direct you to World of Goo (http://2dboy.com/games.php), AI War (http://www.arcengames.com/), Aquaria (http://www.bit-blot.com/aquaria/) and Flotilla (http://www.blendogames.com/flotilla/) - and this only from the indie stand point.
edyzmedieval
05-31-2010, 00:11
World of Goo is fun, I subscribe to that. I want the AAAAAA - Reckless disregard for Gravity. Any good?
I think people are forgetting something. Main-stream don't want overly complicated games, because they are "too confusing". In otherwords, blame the 'casuals'. Because the market is trying to focus on the casuals in order to get money. However, this annoys gamers as gamers are not casuals.
I think the current decline in the quality of games currently is down to two things, really.
I think that Facebook games is the first one; they're becoming more popular and prevalent and there's people of all ages devoting large portions of their lives to these Mafia, Pirates, Farmville; I had a look at an old friend of my father's and she was playing Farmville to the point where she was in a huge community for it!
Speaking of Farmville, though... what's so different about that game to the Harvest Moon games I used to play on Gameboy and had other girls saying "why're you playing a farming game?!" What's so different about this absorbing, life-draining community-esque game that means it doesn't draw the same ire as WoW?
Meh, I loathe Facebook games with a passion.
The second is the Nintendo Wii; yes it's a fantastic 'party' machine, and yes it's introducted alot more demographics to gaming whereby I can ask female friends if they want to play a video game and they'll not look at me as if I was speaking Swahili or whatever.
The thing is that this increased market, thanks in part to the Wii, means that developers are flooding us with sub-par games to make a quick buck based on the 'party' aspect of the console; why pour lots of time and effort into the perfect Zelda game which will only sell to fans and the like when they can churn out WiiSports Public Toilet Edition and people of all ages will buy it?
What the Wii has done for bringing gaming to the mainstream is fantastic, but what it's done for actual game quality is discouraging to the developers for the Playstation 3 and X-Box 360; I think this is why you're seeing a shift towards more collectibles (achievements and trophies) and heavier multiplayer focus.
I'm always in the same argument with my father when he pops up and asks why Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Age: Origins isn't multiplayer; he believes that every game should have multiplayer, but then he only plays Fifa and Call of Duty. >.<
edyzmedieval
06-06-2010, 16:54
Ditto about Facebook games. They're a disaster. And I loved the South Park spoof - You Have No Friends.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.