Video games are better now than ever. Agree or disagree?

Video games are better now than ever. Agree or disagree?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xNter0oEYxc
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

not better than ever but definitely in a better state than last gen

Disagree. I don't like change.

Video games are all multiplayer focused now, and single player experience has been dialed down by basically every company out there in favor of more profitable models.

Video games are no longer about making them good, they just need to be made to look cool now so people buy it. It’s like those shitty games back in the day that had a really cool box but was actually trash. Every game is like that now

Wait just a second

Definitely a trend, although some games are still good.

Also a lot of the "DLC" that is released should be included in the game.

ask me next year when Monster Hunter World comes out.

The spectrum is getting broad enough, and developers are getting ambitious enough, to where there's a video game for just about everybody now. That said, the AAA titles, which try to appeal to everyone at once, are as bad as they've ever been, if not worse.

Hard to say.

I legitimately think some of my favorite games of all time cam out this year, but I'm still going to have to say "no" because the overall state of the industry is a fucking trash fire. Look at this lootbox shit. LOOK AT IT. STARE INTO THE ABYSS.

Disagree. But I've still enjoyed plenty of games this gen and last. My main gripe is the shift towards multiplayer, which I've never been a fan of outside of couch co-op.

agree

>The spectrum is getting broad enough, and developers are getting ambitious enough, to where there's a video game for just about everybody now.

Yes because I can go play all the good new games and the good old games when ever I want right now.

No, nothing nowadays compares to HoMM 3, not asking for much, just the next good HoMM with updated graphics

True.
I rarely buy a AAA title.
But I have a game for every mood I'm in from comfy farming, spread sheet simulators, beat-em-ups and military simulators.
If you want a type of game, it's usually out there.
Pic unrelated.

Depends on what type of genres you like.

For the most part I think it's good, but only because I like long-running multiplayer shooters over 8-12 hours singleplayer campaigns. Wish there were more strategy games though.

>Computers have ultra high graphics now
>People decide to play 80's/ 90's games with them

>muh, muh grapheeecs
Are you sad that my 90's game is still getting mods to this day, including a HD mod.

HoMM 3 is a masterpiece and doesn't even need mods to compete with your shitty games.

Disagree. The proportion of distribution and quality are really skewed in a negative way right now.

I think its plateauing, at least in terms of AAA titles.

>People have computers, smartphones, and tablets
>People read books from the 1800s on them

Only the really spergy nostalgiafags
Most of the industry has moved on from them

disagree

Overall, agree.
Case-by-case, disagree.
>Tools people have available are better than ever
>More videogames are being made every day, faster than ever
>While there are more good games, there's also more bad games
>The video-game "industry," specifically AAA titles and major "indie" outliers, is a total shitshow that makes the yesteryear of vidya look like a shining oasis
>Corporate greed continues to rise over time and thus big-budget titles continue to be more and more not-good/bad

Disagree. This era: (2011-2017) is crap. Every game is designed to basically be for gambling, not vidya gaming. I want to buy the full game and maybe an expansion pack or two later down the line. If I already paid 15-75USD for a game there should be no reason why I have to pay extra for content included with the game upon launch.

Games in the what I call my fav era (1995-2006) where focused on release a product that was fun to play, complete, and did not try to shake me for every penny I have to unlock the next character/skin/map/weapon.

I will however give TF2 a pass, since the game is "Free", and is a full game, but introduces the freemium business model in the least invasive way possible. So I may end up paying 30-75 USD in micro-transactions, that I got for free. Plus I am yet to find a game where I can actually make a small profit off of liquidating my inventory. But TF2 is the only exception.

Absolutely. I think when people get nostalgia about abstracts like eras they're mainly remembering
1) Every single game they liked that was released in that era, at once, and
2) Only the good parts about all those games
and sometimes they have politics rotting their brain and confusing their judgement of what makes a fun game (this goes both ways).

I never really got into PC gaming until recently, but I find my self enjoying the older games like Deus Ex than most modern games (probably because they relied less on flash graphics, and fanboy marketing to sell games back then). It would be awesome to use mods like GMDX to play it in semi-modern graphics.

>they relied less on flash graphics
Excuse me? Having top of the line graphics and good artists has been a keystone to selling vidya for longer than you've been alive. And I assure you marketing is just as stupid. Your post reeks of underaged.

I think they're prettier and more convenient than they've ever been but that doesn't necessarily translate to better in all respects.

Graphics have always been important, but it wasn't until very recently that you can make scenes better than or equal to high budget movies. When you have companies like EA and Ubisoft advertising there games at E3 it almost feels like they are pitching a first person movie.
youtube.com/watch?v=xNter0oEYxc

Whoever agrees with this is fucking retarded.

God no. Most games these days suck ass.

GOD TIER
00-05

HIGH TIER
95-00

MID TIER
05-10

LOW TIER
15-current

SHIT TIER
10-15

You're exactly 20 years late, OP.

>GOD TIER
>00-05
t. grew up with 00-05

Disagree, the cash-grabbing schemes are getting more and more blatant and the AAA industry is more bland and homogeneous than ever before.

>it wasn't until very recently that you can make scenes better than or equal to high budget movies
Boy have I heard line that for literally twenty-five years. It's not true. Not remotely, unless you want to compare the best bullshots to the worst vfx moments.

>i only play modern games

Not really, no. This year was one of the best in years for single player content, though.

Agree, even though the mainstream design philosophy is pretty fucking rotten

Also people tend to cherry pick the past, especially if they hadn't lived it/it was their childhood, which applies to most of Sup Forums

>bido gams ar bedr den dey wer in de pest!

Making actually challenging games with lives is a lost art.

>00-05 God tier
>05-10 that low

You must be over 18 years of age to post here.

Video games are better than ever because emulation allows you to go back and play all of the old games upscaled in a better state that ever, while you also get access to everything new at the same time

There is effectively no backwards movement for the smart consumer, because you just buy/play whatever the fuck you want

>Make challenging games
>Get called a dark souls ripoff
>Get scathing reviews about "promoting elitism and ableism in video games"

Semi-difficult games are the true casual filter, but we live in an era where profit maximization also means casualization.

Its not a good feel.

I feel like video games as we know it are going to disappear as a whole, and are going to be replaced by phoneshit and vr in a close future. This year was a good year, but the decade was shit. It could as well be the last hurrah.

>old games are bad purely because they have old assets

how to spot tourists on this site

There's never been a better time to be a gamer. I stand by this statement.

>Boy have I heard line that for literally twenty-five years.

I call bullshit. And I am specifically talking about AAA titles that will do well commercially regardless of how good the game actually is.
Compare any game made in 1992 to today. Then compare pretty much any movie that heavily uses CGI affects to both games.

Also note how more cut scene heavy modern games are. Again compare that to the games from 25 years ago.

I took the PS3 meme, but desu Wii was shit too.

Yes and no. Nothing will ever beat the excitement of pre internet era hype and exploration. You will never wander for hours trying to figure out where you were supposed to go.

Sup reddit

>"gamer"

Every was hailing Donkey Kong Country as crazy good looking and compared it to Pixar films. "It's even made on the same silicon graphics workstations, man!"

In terms of quality, about the same as they ever have been. 90% are shit and 10% are good. Same in any generation.

In terms of graphics and stuff, ever changing.

Best its been for awhile but nothing will beat the ps1 / ps2 era of JRPGs

I don't think we can call what's being produced games anymore.

I'm doing that right now with a lot of older games, and they're honestly way more fun to explore blind than most games these days, as they've become predictable and formulaic. I thought I was being a cynical nostalgiafag, but playing all this shit I missed out on has shown me that that isn't entirely so. Still, games like Divinity Original Sin have been very refreshing.

Yet it was marketed as a game, and no where near being close to a movie.

Better simply due to technology and popularity.

There are now so many ways to enjoy old games in a private or social setting.

There are now so many games to play for people who like games based on retro design. (Non-cinematic, purely gameplay driven 20 dollar indie games)

There are now so many new cinematic, 60 dollar experiences that are impressive feats of technology themselves.

You can like one of these three categories and fit an enjoyable hobby in your life. Anybody who can't find their niche is going through problems not related to video games.

but now we have the internet to confirm these things

>gameplay-focused video GAMES are considered retro

Dragon's Lair came out in 83. Another World came out in 91.

Disagree.
Every game this year has scored 6 or lower.

Damn this guy's played 'em all.

>games are better now because you can play old games
>indie games follow retro design

Disagree.
There was a time when Japanese games were as if not more commercially successful that western ones, when they actually got advertised in mainstream outlets, and the international sales gave them the profits needed to make masterpieces.
There was a time when high-tech games had exclusivity to the PC, using its hardware and interface to its fullest extent.
There was a time every game release was a self-contained product that the user had complete freedom to use as seen fit.
There was a time the market was a fluid spectrum rather than a continually segregating separation of Hollywood bloat and bare-bones mobile apps.
Those days are long gone.

ELDER GOD TIER
90-95

MAXIMUM TIER
85-90

2000-2005 was the greatest time for gaming, with some wiggle room of a year or so before and after.

Graphics were good enough that you could tell any story or do mostly any gameplay style, but still budget enough that they didn't have to cut quality or come out unfinished too often.

That said the past year and a half have been pretty good, so I'm hopeful.

If you're mostly into single player games like myself, then no, they're not.

Capabilities and quality wise, yes. Consoles are versatile at almost everything and games are getting more gorgeous now.

Business wise, hell fucking no. Shady as fuck business has corrupted the gaming industry to the point where some games are either cashgrabs or just souless. We also got problematic abuse of DLCs, micro transactions, and so many other shit thats plaguing games nowadays.

I'd take 1990s/2000s games any day.

This is objectively, 100% correct.
Pretty much all of 85-95 falling into mid tier as well.

>Video games are all multiplayer focused now

Yet local 3-4 player multiplayer is completely dead outside of sports games.

What a mediocre image to grace with that filename, all the laughing anime girls in the world and that tepid shit is your choice for the baseline "anime reaction image.gif"?

>yfw hardware and software restrictions made for better games
>yfw shit hardware/software made it almost impossible to include bullshit that we see nowadays
>yfw shit internet and no internet for consoles made it so you had to have a good game with decent content because people couldnt update it all the time
>yfw you give your CDs/DVDs to some other goy with the crack so you can both play the game or just because he had shit internet
>ywn see more advanced TECHNOLOGY in games because devs have realized people will buy the most basic of games
>yfw with modern hardware and software like unity or UE4 people can easily create a god tier or middle ware PS2 gen title but dont because they make psudo-retro games
>its easier for the common man to make a game and self publish now than it has ever been yet only a few people do it

>tfw all your favorite franchises are either dead or ruined by devs who wanted a "wider audience"

The average title is better than ever since the awkward years of 3d game design are gone, now most mechanics have been normalized and most devs know how to make a somewhat competent game in most genres. However now most games are more derivative and the amount of genuinely great games is very small since most devs are happy with just making a somewhat competent game and let graphics/story or huge (but redundant) amount of content do the job.

t. based user

The average title is worse because creativity is dead.

Ha play heroes 7 then fucking brainlet.

Creativity is dead, but creativity alone means shit if the overall game controls like shit and most ideas are poorly implemented. Also, it's not like the average/unremarkable title of the ps1/ps2 or even older gens were creative. Look at most games that people don't remember from the nes, snes, ps1/64 etc and they majority are pretty shit. Now the average title isn't great either but it works certainly better than LJN garbage.

>it's not like the average/unremarkable title of the ps1/ps2 or even older gens were creative
That's where you're wrong.

Winback wasn't that great though, it was innovative but try to play it today and it doesn't hold up that well compared to the titles that are actually remembered.

>Clunky ass cover
>Auto aim
>Lack of mobility options
Are you trying to prove him right? I mean cover shooting was unheard of back then but being the first in doing some mechanic doesn't mean the execution of said mechanic or the title were actually good.

What not enough QTEs and setpieces for it to hold up to modern "standards"?
>clunky
Enough of this utterly meaningless word. That auto aim aims for their center of mass, the worst place to hit someone in game and is not a lock on. Its relative to their position when you jump out of cover.

>What not enough QTEs and setpieces for it to hold up to modern "standards"?
Movement while in cover is stiff.
Aiming is even more automated than Halo and it's bullet magnetism.
And as the other user pointed out, lack of mobility/slow movement.
See any tps released in this generation and they control better than this, they add shit like setpieces and qtes but they also offer most of what this title tried to give to the players but without the awkward flaws that this game had.

>Aiming is even more automated than Halo and it's bullet magnetism.
That's a complete lie. The game doesn't have auto aim.

It has a shitload of bullet magnetism and huge ass hitboxes to make up for the imprecise aiming controls of the time. Try to shoot at a target in halo (which is already fucking generous with bullet magnetism) and compare it to hitting targets in this title, you require even less effort in this one.
This isn't inherently a flaw but the more inputs a player makes during gameplay the more active it tends to feel. This is why games with targets that are easy to hit are more focused on running around avoiding their attacks.

>The average/unremarkable title
>Proceeds to post a landmark of console shooters
?

>It has a shitload of bullet magnetism and huge ass hitboxes to make up for the imprecise aiming controls of the time
No it doesn't. I can prove it.

it's better than recent years but better than ever? nah

While open worlds aren't inherently bad there are too many series that have adopted them in shitty ways or have dropped too many great aspects to make place for them.

Also look at corporations overjewing it with DLCs, microtransactions and lootboxes.
Also add the SJW hambeasts and the dumpster fire that is the diversity quota in both, in-game and in real life dev teams.

>It's better that we have free updates, that add new stuff and can strengthen the game experience.

Some will say "but muh shyt could have been in from the start", since games nowadays are being released faster than ever, there is stuff that just can't make it in due to the deadline.
It's more convenient for the developers to assign a small team that works solely on new content and updates post release, than let the whole studio grind for it last minute, pushing the costs even further, and release an unpolished mess that needs even more dedication and time to fix.

>It's worse that we have mictrotransactions, and actual cut-content, which has been removed solely, to generate free cash for the company post release.

Alright, mictrotransactions are slightly okay, if the content was actually freshly produced months after release. Be it a costume or something story related, the base game needs to actually kill it, and stand on it's own without any dlc whatsoever. Dlc should only be there to expand the already great experience, aka expansion.

In all these years of gaming, I think that Witcher 3 did it the best until now, as well as Monster Hunter, which always had free dlc, even though it probably wasn't much demanding to just put couple new monsters in a different area, the thought sure counts.

On current releases only: No
In aggregate: Yes. (Because successive past titles can still be played, and their number only increases while time filters shit titles out and lifts good ones to the top.)

Visually, yes, but everything around most games are fucking terrible and takes away part of the fun.

05-10 contains the stinkers that turned mainstream vidya to shit, namely CoD4 and Halo 3

Oh and Oblivion. The Triumvirate of Evil.

Dunno, but Automata filled the void MGSV left in me. Western AAA is getting worse, however.

>indie games follow retro design
The main problem with indie games is that even when they have the heart in the right place their lack of experience ends up killing part of the potential of the idea.
Look at Super Hot for example, the core idea is pretty good and the game itself is fun but still not great, you can tell that the devs couldn't come with enough variety or depth for the game.

Fuck off, Spongebob, you don't have video games under the sea.

>good single player games are dead
>good FPS is dead
>cant play a game without a cutscene/scripted sequence breaking the flow and taking controll away from the player
>still no dedicated kick button that doesnt interrupt shooting
>most games dont let you select grenades and can only throw them with g
>no cool weapons and enemies
>weapon limits
>"wider audience"
>cancelling good games because of some bullshit
>no coop/LAN-splitscreen coop
>no more expansion packs but lazily put together assets as "expandalones"
>game having shitty hitboxes and gameplay overall is praised for being hard
>no more RTS-FPS/TPS combination games
>weapon skins that should be unlocked via challenges are now paid DLC
>games dont include challenges anymore
>OSTs are pretty shit and are either generic orchestral or the shittest electronic music
>games today are so bad people are nostalgiaing over the shittest games of previous gen
>modding and communities are dead
>rarely see any clans anymore
whats the list of things to do and not to do when making a GOOD game?