The quality of video games has declined over the past 10 years.

[Mera]

Declined? Don't you remember how much trash was churned out in that time? If anything the quality has improved.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Mera

[Violetta]

The quality of video games started declining when PC gaming became popular. Suddenly games had to be dumbed down so they could run on the low tech equipment that was PC's with it's inferior operating system, inferior performance, inferior visuals/sound, less memory, just bloody awful...

 

(Old C64/Amiga 4000 gamer)

Don't you mean whenever PC gaming died and developers/publishers moved on to console games?

[Purkake]

Nu uh, my nostalgia is clearly better than your nostalgia!

[Labadal]

What if I like old games and new games?

 

What then?

 

I have bad news: You are a sane man in an insane world.

[Purkake]

Or am I?

 

 

[Gorth]

The quality of video games started declining when PC gaming became popular. Suddenly games had to be dumbed down so they could run on the low tech equipment that was PC's with it's inferior operating system, inferior performance, inferior visuals/sound, less memory, just bloody awful... >_

 

(Old C64/Amiga 4000 gamer)

Don't you mean whenever PC gaming died and developers/publishers moved on to console games?

No

 

Some of us predates PC gaming

[HoonDing]

[Rostere]

Oh come on, surely you must all agree that 1998-2001 was a golden era for PC gaming. At least give me a counterexample of groundbreaking either story-based games or strategy games that were released after this era.

 

I would agree to that it's blatantly obvious that more original games were released then - if we agree on there being a limit for the number of truly unique ideas you can implement in a computer game. Around 1998-2001, gaming had grew but the original companies which made games throughout the nineties were the same, the same as when programming games had not included investing that much money. Then a lot of companies went bankrupt or were assimilated by larger companies, and we got the more monopolized market we have today. What we're really missing are the companies who were neither industry giants nor indie.

[Volourn]

There was som muchc rap released back then. People ount maybe half a dozen 'classics' and use that as prove yet ignore the hundredfs of games releaed thatw ere crap. Not to mention, many of the so called 'classic' were crappy themselves.

[RPGmasterBoo]

The last couple of years, the trend has been to improve graphics and cut back on the actual game. The reasoning seems to be that the player has to have fun at least every 30 seconds, the player should never feel any remotely bad feelings (as in being punished for dying, being able to fail a quest, having game mechanics that they don't understand within 10 seconds) and completing the game (with a full 1000 points achievement list) should be accessible to everyone. This is what's referred to as "streamlining". Quest arrows, mini-maps, breadcrumb trails, constant checkpoints, one-button combat, these are all part of this streamlining process. It's like game developers are climbing all over themselves in their attempts at coming up with the next aid to remove the last shred of challenge in the games.

 

Basically, I think the problem is that game developers don't know what streamlining is supposed to mean. Making an interface slick, intuitive and uncluttered is good streamlining. Making it impossible to fail a quest is bad streamlining. Writing quests that makes players interested in solving them is good streamlining, making quests where your only reason to go talk to someone is the big golden arrow above their head is bad streamlining. Creating a world that's interesting and accessible is good streamlining, having to have your players rely on a breadcrumb trail is bad streamlining.

 

Yes. Its because games are a hedonistic indulgence and the end goal of every dev is to make it enjoyable to as many people as possible - to increase sales. Its the user friendliness mantra that started with Microsoft/Windows. While user friendliness in a system that functions as a workspace is logical and necessary in games that are oriented to achieveing a goal by overcoming challanges its only useful to a point - because after that it actually kills challenge. Especially if you are already used to obscure and difficult systems, playing simplified versions lessens the subjective feeling of accomplishment (the reward) and makes the experience unsatisfying.

 

Eg: I was fascinated, coming fresh from ToB, that in NWN I practically couldnt die. Once I realised that, playing lost all purpose.

I've had that experience many times since - with various games bending over backwards to make sure I didn't fail my immediate task.

 

Oh come on, surely you must all agree that 1998-2001 was a golden era for PC gaming. At least give me a counterexample of groundbreaking either story-based games or strategy games that were released after this era.

 

That can actually be proven for the RPG and RTS genres. Once upon a time I made a list of all strategy games released 1998-2010 and it was blatantly obvious that the landmark titles after say 2003 got down to one release per year. At best.

 

. What we're really missing are the companies who were neither industry giants nor indie.

Exactly. The best games usually came from them.Probably because of an adequate balance of artistic control (lacking in giants) and adequate funding (lacking in indie).

Edited October 22, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Malcador]

There was som muchc rap released back then. People ount maybe half a dozen 'classics' and use that as prove yet ignore the hundredfs of games releaed thatw ere crap. Not to mention, many of the so called 'classic' were crappy themselves.

 

Eh ? Which 'classics' are crap ? There's as much if not more crap out there right now than there was back in 97-01.

[Volourn]

"There's as much if not more crap out there right now than there was back in 97-01."

 

Doubtful.

[Malcador]

Hm, not really. I see plenty of dross when I browse Steam and look around in stores. The market is so much bigger now, so that makes sense. I still disagree that many of the classic games are crap, though, even accounting for my personal preferences.

[Thorton_AP]

Oh come on, surely you must all agree that 1998-2001 was a golden era for PC gaming. At least give me a counterexample of groundbreaking either story-based games or strategy games that were released after this era.

 

Portal with about 0.01 seconds of thinking about it.

 

Also: why are you limiting the criteria to only story based and strategy games?

[Morgoth]

There was much more crap back in the 90s. Today you can't afford to make such a crap game, otherwise you're quickly out of business.

[Humodour]

This thread is a load of ****.

 

PC gaming isn't dying. In fact, it's thriving. And Valve is at the forefront of it.

[Purkake]

There was som muchc rap released back then. People ount maybe half a dozen 'classics' and use that as prove yet ignore the hundredfs of games releaed thatw ere crap. Not to mention, many of the so called 'classic' were crappy themselves.

 

Eh ? Which 'classics' are crap ? There's as much if not more crap out there right now than there was back in 97-01.

You should know better by now...

 

Oh come on, surely you must all agree that 1998-2001 was a golden era for PC gaming. At least give me a counterexample of groundbreaking either story-based games or strategy games that were released after this era.

 

I would agree to that it's blatantly obvious that more original games were released then - if we agree on there being a limit for the number of truly unique ideas you can implement in a computer game. Around 1998-2001, gaming had grew but the original companies which made games throughout the nineties were the same, the same as when programming games had not included investing that much money. Then a lot of companies went bankrupt or were assimilated by larger companies, and we got the more monopolized market we have today. What we're really missing are the companies who were neither industry giants nor indie.

How about agreeing that opinions are in fact subjective?

[RPGmasterBoo]

Oh come on, surely you must all agree that 1998-2001 was a golden era for PC gaming. At least give me a counterexample of groundbreaking either story-based games or strategy games that were released after this era.

 

Portal with about 0.01 seconds of thinking about it.

 

Also: why are you limiting the criteria to only story based and strategy games?

 

There's nothing really groundbreaking about a first person puzzle game other than the use of that particular perspective.

 

As for the much vaunted story of Portal I don't really see what's the big deal about it. Overall its more of a gimmick than a real game.

[entrerix]

no you didnt boo.

 

if you are not appreciating the humor mystery and charisma of portal then you are willfully closing your eyes to it because it's popular. don't be too cool for school, its unflattering.

 

give in, indulge yourself in the experience of portal, its not a gimmick, its awesome. just because its short doesnt mean it isnt a game.

[Volourn]

Portal. The entire gimmick sounded dumb. I have never bothered now will i ever bother to play suck a silly game. Poor example of a popular modern game.

[Thorton_AP]

Oh come on, surely you must all agree that 1998-2001 was a golden era for PC gaming. At least give me a counterexample of groundbreaking either story-based games or strategy games that were released after this era.

 

Portal with about 0.01 seconds of thinking about it.

 

Also: why are you limiting the criteria to only story based and strategy games?

 

There's nothing really groundbreaking about a first person puzzle game other than the use of that particular perspective.

 

As for the much vaunted story of Portal I don't really see what's the big deal about it. Overall its more of a gimmick than a real game.

 

There's nothing really groundbreaking about an isometric RPG system like Baldur's Gate 1/2, yet you seem to have a major jonesing for it too. Especially given how the first game was laden with excessive linearity.

 

The only groundbreaking thing about Starcraft was that they actually found a way to balance 3 distinctly different races. Blizzard has never been particularly creative though, and just do a very good job of taking and refining ideas from other games (or in the case of the entire Starcraft lore, other table top miniature games like Warhammer).

 

If you really want, I could go through probably all of the games on the big list in the OP and find a way to trivialize the game to the point where I can conclude that they aren't groundbreaking (for the record, games like Baldur's Gate 2 and Starcraft are games I do think are fantastic).

 

Portal was an excellent game with fantastic pacing, and found a way to take the first person perspective and create some fantastic gameplay elements that have never been done before. If doing stuff that has never been done before isn't groundbreaking, then I think we're using different definitions of the word.

[Nepenthe]

I think that what's sure is that the quality of new threads has dramatically declined over the past week...

[RPGmasterBoo]

no you didnt boo.

 

if you are not appreciating the humor mystery and charisma of portal then you are willfully closing your eyes to it because it's popular. don't be too cool for school, its unflattering.

 

give in, indulge yourself in the experience of portal, its not a gimmick, its awesome. just because its short doesnt mean it isnt a game.

 

I was genuinely bored. And it was over too quickly. I think it maybe an issue with the Half Life engine. I got a bit tired of its visuals by the time I was through with HL2. I have also something of a dislike towards "rogue AI" stories, which is one of the most abused sci fi ideas ever. I mean overall, it was well above the usual stuff that's churned out (which in itself is a commendable thing) but it wasn't an unforgettable gaming experience.

 

Just so it doesn't seem I'm criticizing all new games, I found Company of Heroes phenomenal - which is weird since:

a) I hate WWII

b) I'm doubly as uninterested in playing the endlessly repeated western front

 

And I loved Stalker: Call of Pripyat even with its heavily flawed storyline and lame third act.

 

@Thorton AP: I'm not trivialising - I'm just not seeing this big deal everyone else is seeing.

With Bioshock I could see what everyone liked so much, with Portal... not so much. Dunno what other much valued modern shooters are.... Ah... Crysis. I hate Crysis.

Edited October 22, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Slowtrain]

With Bioshock I could see what everyone liked so much

 

 

heh. Bioshock was crap, at least in comparison to its lineage.

[RPGmasterBoo]

With Bioshock I could see what everyone liked so much

 

 

heh. Bioshock was crap, at least in comparison to its lineage.

 

I liked a lot about it, but the ending was formulaic and the insta respawn killed the atmosphere.

 

I dunno, I could never nerdgasm over shooters anyway. Even my love for HL1 has declined over the years. Same with Deus Ex.

 

Except for UT. UT always gets my blood boilin