I was just thinking about this today; I'd like to hear some others' thoughts on this matter.
Do you think games (in general) have been getting better over time, or worse?
In my opinion, games are getting better over time. Especially if you look at, say, the Atari. I've enjoyed a few Atari games, but there isn't a single one that I'd play for hundreds of hours like I do with modern games. Heck, I'd even say that games have generally increased in quality even since the early 2000's. We're just beginning to figure out how well we can use video games as a means of storytelling, and graphics are better than ever before. Even retro styled games can be very good! I also think that some of today's bad games are still better quality than some of yesterday's good games.
So what do you think? Are games getting better? Are they stagnating? Or are they maybe getting worse?
No. There will always be good, and bad games, you shouldn't generalize them like this. That, and the vast majority of modern games play it far too safe.
[16:08] LordJumpMad Hides his gut with a griddle
[16:08] Reala: what ljm does for cash is ljm's business
[16:08] LordJumpMad: Gotta look good my my next game u_u
In my opinion no. I continue to play and enjoy NES and SNES time and time again. Modern games I pretty much only play once and then don't waste time with online.
To blessed to be stressed.
80's music makes me feel fabulous.
What Would Duane Do? Rynoggery
No. There will always be good, and bad games, you shouldn't generalize them like this. That, and the vast majority of modern games play it far too safe.
This, though also kinda what Ryno said. I dunno if its just my habits changing, but I don't replay levels as much as I used to unless it's really old, like Mega Man.
Hit and miss ... basically no change really. The gap between "this game is awesome" and "this game sucks" is getting wider though. Really good games always seem so awesome you can't put them down, while really bad games you play them an hour and never pick them up again. The problem is that game companies are trying too hard to focus on very specific markets in most games, thus games tend to appeal to smaller audiences instead of seeking to expand their audiences. The really awesome games tend to be the few where they tried to include something for several markets, like Tales of the Abyss as an example. The game mixes action and RPG elements in a balanced manner, including some mini-game like elements such as cooking and box pushing. This appeals to three audiences, the combat action gamers, RPG gamers, and puzzlers. More markets means a higher chance of being enjoyed, making the game kind of awesome. Then you have Call of Duty, which targets a specific, and rather small, audience of gamers, the military action gamers. Not a wide audience, thus a greater chance of a player not enjoying it.
Friend list is full, I will be clearing room for Bravely Default soon though. Colors! 3D Gallery, My Blog
NNID: KittenKoder ..... what else would it be?
Hit and miss ... basically no change really. The gap between "this game is awesome" and "this game sucks" is getting wider though. Really good games always seem so awesome you can't put them down, while really bad games you play them an hour and never pick them up again. The problem is that game companies are trying too hard to focus on very specific markets in most games, thus games tend to appeal to smaller audiences instead of seeking to expand their audiences. The really awesome games tend to be the few where they tried to include something for several markets, like Tales of the Abyss as an example. The game mixes action and RPG elements in a balanced manner, including some mini-game like elements such as cooking and box pushing. This appeals to three audiences, the combat action gamers, RPG gamers, and puzzlers. More markets means a higher chance of being enjoyed, making the game kind of awesome. Then you have Call of Duty, which targets a specific, and rather small, audience of gamers, the military action gamers. Not a wide audience, thus a greater chance of a player not enjoying it.
None of what you said has any bearing in reality whatsoever.
Just because you play a game for an hour doesn't always mean its bad. It could just mean it's not what you're in the mood for and maybe it'll suck you in later. Plus a 1 hour session is pretty good for most games.
The Tales Series, by combining genres, if anything has now made it more niche, by restricting itself to people who like action games, RPGs, AND puzzles. Call of Duty, on the otherhand, just needs to appeal to those who like to shoot things, what happens to be a very large and maluable demographic. Not to mention it's simple in its approach and well-versed in the "easy to learn, difficult to master" gameplay that tends to make a lot of games a sure hit.
And honestly, I haven't seen the gap as getting any wider. You personally are just finding yourself spending less time with games that aren't immediately engaging.
The Tales Series, by combining genres, if anything has now made it more niche, by restricting itself to people who like action games, RPGs, AND puzzles
That's a hell of a lot of overlap though. Most games that fall into one of those genres will also fall into at least one other.
You could just as easily say that Zelda games limit their audience because they must appeal to people who like action/adventure, puzzles, AND platformers.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
I thought Tales of was becoming more niche because nearly the entire JRPG genre was on the fast track to irrelevancy outside of Japan before Xenoblade and Ni No Kuni caught people's attention
I thought Tales of was becoming more niche because nearly the entire JRPG genre was on the fast track to irrelevancy outside of Japan before Xenoblade and Ni No Kuni caught people's attention
This, and also the Tales series requires significant time investment to watch as the characters develop both story wise and gameplay wise. The first few hours of the Tales games especially are bland because you've just got basic attacks and it's fairly stock standard RPG fare while you're getting the party together. Call of Duty meanwhile is about maximalist action and you can be shooting and exploding things in the first ten minutes. Different strokes, I guess.
/backontopic
I think that if a game is really truly outstanding, it'll be good regardless of what time frame people are playing in. In each era though, there are games which can only be described as mediocre - they're not unplayable by any means but they're just enough to tide you over until the next outstanding game. And I would certainly say a mediocre game of the NES era (let's say something like Simon's Quest, for example) is a whole lot worse than a mediocre game of the current era (let's say a movie tie in game). The baseline for the average game keeps rising with technology, but there will always be outstanding and downright terrible games as outliers.
So if you graphed it out, it would seem as though video games as a whole are getting better, although the best old games are still as good as the best new games.
always thought I'd change to Gyarados after I turned 20 but hey, this is more fitting I guess. (also somebody registered under the original Magikarp name and I can't get back to it anymore orz)
in a technical point of view, yes they only get better even nowadays shovelware is "getting better"
now, when you put the fun, enjoyment and thinga that cant be mastered by technique, games only get worse everytime with a handful of incredible exceptions.
goodbyes are a sad part of life but for every end there's a new beggining so one must never stop looking forward to the next dawn
now working at IBM as helpdesk analyst my Backloggery
I think people look back at the golden age of gaming too much, that they sometimes end up ignoring or just not keeping up with the great games of today. Similar to how my parents talk about how everything that comes out in theaters today is "crap." If they would stop looking back at the movies of their day, then they would realize that there still are great movies that come out.
We also have to realize that when looking at the past, we only see the greatest of that era. When we look at the 90s, we think of A Link to the Past, Super Mario World, Final Fantasy 7, Ocarina of Time, etc. We don't think of The Lord of the Rings volume 1, Superman 64, the cdi games or Snake's Revenge. In 10 years, the kids my age(in their teens) will look back at right now and remember the great games that they played and think the same thing that you're asking.
"The future doesn't belong to you!"
Waiting for: BOTW 2, Metroid Prime 4, Xenoblade Chronicles 3
Forums
Topic: Are Video Games Getting Better?
Posts 1 to 20 of 34
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.