Quality of games

[TinCow]

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.

[A Nerd]

"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]

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]

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, I'm not going to get too excited about Elemental yet though...

[miotas]

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]

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.

[TinCow]

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.

[naut]

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]

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.

[Meneldil]

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.

[drone]

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.

[Azathoth]

You are all allowing nostalgia to cloud your judgement.

[drone]

You are all allowing nostalgia to cloud your judgement.

Get off my lawn.

[Azathoth]

Get off my lawn.

First stop stealing my ball.