Do you guys think old video games were better then nowaday games?

Do you guys think old video games were better then nowaday games?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=UUxJpDtg0Bs
youtube.com/watch?v=jPqwDGXxLhU
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

No.

No, but there were more fun.

youtube.com/watch?v=UUxJpDtg0Bs

Yes.

>Technology is what really matters

professional idiots

Fuck no. These days it's all about the jew dollar and no artistic integrity.

They were crap.
Now games are still crap but for different reasons.

Looking back, Crash was mediocre at most, I gotta admit I only played it because there was nothing else.

I got that backwards. I mean the games of today are trash compared to the games of the past.

It's weird that the genuinely don't get that gameplay is really all that matters for longevity

Games generally used to have more charm, but there have been some gems in the last 10 years. Dark Souls 1, the Nier games, P5, Hollow Knight, Xenoblade, etc.

>shit opinion by "journalist"
why bother

no

Games peaked around ps2 era, where you weren't really limited by the system too much, but also didn't have to send gorrilions on assets. You also didn't have all the microtransactions and social media bullshiy.
It went downhill after that.

WE'VE HAD THIS EXACT THREAD YESTERDAY

>old games are better
no.

so?

Some were.

While the technology might have gotten better, while some secondary tools have gotten better - UI has certainly made a quality jump, I think game-design specifically has suffered a lot in recent years, with clear devolution from the undue influence of industrial design.

Overall, I think we're at one of those evolutionary regression that precedes a next-level jump. Might just be me being an incurable optimist though.

Nintendo games still feel like "old" games. Splatoon even had that fucking 90s/early 2000s commercial.

But yeah, most games nowadays don't have the feeling of "fun"

>Miriam

People tend to look at older games with rose-tinted glasses, a wild ride where there is a very real chance of various debilitating and annoying features, oversights and bugs to exist with old videogames. It's okay to like old games, it means you got your own taste, but when you start generalizing modern videogames as being shit and only old videogames being good, that's when your taste dillutes. Anyone who disagrees with their tastes is automatically called underage by them for "not realizing the value of old videogames".

By the way, wasn't this exact same thread made yesterday?

It honestly depends on the game.

whose this aryan qt?

No shit.
You did not bring anything to the discussion with that remark, obviously there were and are outliers, and the discussion is about overall qualitu of notable games.

>Dead Rising 4
Wait, that actually released? It wasn't a fake user larping with screenshots?

At least old games weren't (for the most part) designed to squeeze as much money out of the user even after the initial purchase. I've become so cynical that I can't enjoy any major release nowadays that has any element of DLC or microtransactions because I just feel like I'm being exploited and supporting the practice just by the original purchase alone.

to be honest a few of the old titles ive played, nothing will ever surpass for me,
Re-1-3,Oot, Goldeneye, Smash Bros, original Doom

>Still no civilization/ 4x game on par with SMAC
>mainline civ still doesn't have: unit workshop, dynamic terrain and ecosystem, factions that play different from each other, ideologies to chose from that actually affect how your colony is ran, cerebral narrative, kino video clips

And instead of putting any of that in Beyonf earth or Civ 6 let's spend all our budget and development time making these weird looking cartoon people with full animations and voice acting.

VIDEO GAME JOURNALISM
>only an idiot wold have preferred game play and blocky graphics over muh epic plot and story

I certainly agree that by finishing the transition from enthusiast market to full bona fide industry, video games have lost a lot, and let's be honest, the industry ^practice and business people are disgusting at best.

Old
>have to test game or recall thousands of prints just to redo, which means more testing. later, there was patching, but rarely day-1
>expansion packs
>no internet, no guides, which enables that "mew under the truck" rumor to go around. play games fresh, no minmax bullshit
>lots of games lack QoL stuff, meaning lots of repetitions/hoops to go through to do 1 simple thing
>caters to certain fanbase most of the time
>limited hardware capability, so devs have to do creative shit in order to make characters unique and easily identifiable, or optimize code. makes for good stories like that rollercoaster tycoon dev, or Pokemon Gold/Silver

New
>can ship games buggy and go with day-1 patch
>dlc, microtransactions
>guides and spoilers everywhere
>QoL has more focus, which also means streamlining
>wants the most sales, most of the time
>hardly any optimizations, so much bloat

Yes. There is a very noticeable shift towards generic shit right around 2007. When the target audience became dumb casuals.

Fuck, you hit me hard with that one. Seeing SMAC and seeing what followed is so monstrously disheartening.

Well Crash was, without a doubt. 1-3 are masterpieces in platforming, and CTR blew MK and DKR the fuck out of the water.

Sonic Mania was great even if the mascot is considered outdated by many. Going back to basics isn't a bad thing, especially when so many modern games miss the point of video games, it seems like most developers today are more interested in making cinematic experiences with high-end graphics as opposed to a game that's simple and fun. I see a lot of great games come from indie developers who just take an idea like cars driving around and hitting a ball into a goal and it's a thousand times more innovative than games like the Last of Us that's only memorable feature is the story.
There are old games that were held up by their story, don't get me wrong. But they weren't the majority in the industry. Game's like Xenogears were part of their own genre and games like Terok weren't trying to emulate them.

Looking backwards is probably the best solution to recover from stagnation. I remember lots of games that weren't successful back then that could be successful today. One Piece Mansion would be great on phones.

No, the late nineties/early 00s were the best time, its just that the PS3/360 era was so shitty that it makes today's relatively much better games seem incredible.

youtube.com/watch?v=jPqwDGXxLhU

>dont't reproduce goy
shoo shoo

Are you implying the original Wolfenstein had good gameplay?

technology has allowed devs to ship buggy, shoddy projects--lots of them not even half feature complete these days--and then sell DLCs with the missing features (you already paid for, but now you can pay again) and p2w cash shop shit. It's also let a whole gang of sleazy SJW extortionists rise up and try to shake publishers down for payoffs by threatening to blare about how it's "toxic" or "problematic" or "metoo."

but good games--not platformer games, fuck platformer games--the devs used to have passion that devs don't have anymore. I assume they get into the industry only to find out what an exploitative, awful culture dev studios have and full of useless shitters. A dev studio couldn't have gotten away with having 100, 200 do-nothings sitting around doing nothing like big AAA dev studios apparently do these days.

I love currentgen. Last gen was a cinematic corridor nightmare, I almost dropped gaming altogether in those dark years of western devs dominating the market. Now it's all about open world and if you can't enjoy an open world game the problem is most likely with you, not the game. This gen is as good as the PS2 gen I'd say.

Yes, I personally had more fun with them and I still do. They also had less bullshit for the most part.

>technology has allowed devs to ship buggy, shoddy projects
"shovelware" has been around since the 80's
>SJW extortionists...
obsession noted

Not him but I am.

They're better for the same reason books and radio are better than television. Your brain and imagination filled in the details. It's much closer to the kind of play you did when you were a kid in a sandbox and it's why Minecraft and Terraria are great games even though they are modern.

There's also something special about having to learn radically different control schemes when you pick up a new game. You don't experience this as often because controls for most genres have become fairly standard.

Then you have to consider that AAA gaming has grown rather stagnant. Not to mention the fact that they are now trying to squeeze every last penny out of you and are getting exceedingly good at doing so.

I could say more, but I know that most people here are not here for discussion. So, go back to reposting this thread every day and go post some frogs and wojaks. Have fun.

Depends on what you're looking at. Polish, visuals, controls and flexibility? No, outside of exploitable games like Quake or Melee for the latter at least. As for difficulty, originality, variety and focus? Typically yes, shovelware-aside.

I agree with too, the PS2 is where vidya had just the right amount of attention. Not a random messy stew of untested cash-ins like 80's and early 90's, and not a boringly same billion-dollar milk machine like today.

This.
Last gen was really a learning experience for everyone. A lot of bad trends came and went and people learned from those mistakes.
Last year alone was pretty damn amazing.

if i agree, does that mean we would be getting some fucking original IP's instead of bing bing Wii-U world turbo 3D deluxe edition #451? because if not, then fuck modern gaming

>if you can't enjoy an open world game the problem is most likely with you

9 times out of 10 an open world game is either fetch-quest city or another GTA. People are tired of having the same thing, it's like saying you can't criticize CoD-clones because they're at least playable.

2017 stood out because a handful of decent games broke that norm.

Did you buy ARMS, yet? New technology, New IP, everything you're asking for

Prinz Eugen

I can always enjoy a GTA type of game because I make up my own stories and play them out. That's what makes open world games so good. They can be as fun as your imagination makes them.

>A lot of bad trends came and went

A lot of bad trends came, stayed and festered into this gen. 2017 is the only actually good year that the 8th gen had, the 4 years prior were at best mediocre, and even then when 2017 did shit the bed it was spectacularly awful like with Andromeda and Battlefront II.

Crash Bandicoot is one of the games that aged the best out of any games during the transition to 3D. It kept it simple and straight forward at the time, which is a perfectly respectable thing to do, because look how horrible most mid-90's games are now.

> Games are better now
Literally the next line:
> gaming technology has never LOOKED better.

You fucking kidding me? At least on the simulation side, older games like theme hospital and RCT2 btfo current offerings.

>a literal shovelware clone of Wii Sports boxing
>new IP
>new technology
holy shit how delusional are you nintenfags

a pure German warboat

Ah, so you haven't even tested it out. No wonder you fags spend so much time complaining

Definitive generational ranking
PS2>PS4>PS>PS3>SNES>NES>Atari

Yes

Does RCT2 btfo Planet Coaster though? It's fun

Good point on standardization of control schemes, that's really something I resent Microsoft for.

A westernized wombman and most likely a feminist wrote that garbage.

But what game? Googling only gets me some old guy and literal boats, no anime girls.

That writer is obviously a bugman who consumes and consumes. Doesn't matter to him what it is.

yeah sorry i'm not gonna spend $300 plus game cost to play 3 decent games and 10 shovelware filler titles, unlike you fucking retards

> if you can't enjoy an open world game the problem is most likely with you, not the game

Holy shit, how do people like you even exist. What does it matter that a game is open world when 90% of those games have fuckall in said open world? It's literally the same 4 missions over and over on different locations in the map, complete with quest markers and minimaps, because god forbid you have to explore a little yourself. It's absolute babby tier level design most of the time. I would bring back actual levels with thought put behind every corner than this shit.

>Miriam
Of course

Sure, games like Just Cause 3 and Crackdown prove that. It's merely grating to those who want something besides GTA again, and again and again.

Overwatch, CoD, DayZ, Tolkien-esque works, Super Mario Bros. and cinematic "games" were interesting the first time around too until every other developer decides to ape each other of the idea. More is nice until it becomes less of anything else.

Haha, sure thing m8, I'm sure spending hours a day complaining on Sup Forums isn't as fun, but at least it's free, right?

Wow you've constructed a pretty solid strawman there. I've just played Horizon and HUD is entirely customizable including the quest markers and the minimap and there are more than 4 missions so you're wrong on both fronts there.

Back in the 90s Capcom made all sorts of different fighting games. Now they only make Street Fighter and Marvel, and Marvel's about to die.

At least somebody can appreciate Crash. Sup Forums mostly despises Crash for some reason. With the remake, they just couldn't git gud, but they hate the originals too.

>HUD is entirely customizable

The fact you cannot seem to grasp this is entirely meaningless if the game has been designed with them in mind just goes to show how little your opinion means on the subject.

When the same has a quest marker and minimap feature, the game will be designed with those features in mind.

BASED user

Again, great strawman. I did however go through the entire Horizon without a minimap and without the on screen markers, so you are wrong in this case. If you get lost, just open the big map, it's one button away.
I even went through GTAV without a minimap. That was tougher, I admit, but still totally fine. FFXV without a minimap was very nice too. You don't really need minimaps in most games, they're just there for the retards and people like you who are too stupid to turn them off.

>Golden age of flight had shining luxurious travel available. Comforts that are rare today were freely available to regular passengers.
>Flight today is cramped and uncomfortable with comforts available only to the highest bid.

An advance in technology does not correlate to an advance in customer satisfaction

>horizon

has literally EVERY aspect of the shitty nugame

>go here do this minimap retardation
>awful writing
>awful storytelling
>awful character animations
>awful characters
>intentionally ugly characters
>unsatisfying and clunky combat
>static "open" world
>sold on a single "muh robot dinosaurs" gimmick that got old within an hour
>stronk ugly female protagonist that nobody liked
>literaly marxist propaganda included in the collectible lore datapoints

epic

How is that a strawnman? Stating the fact that you do not seem to grasp a nuance isn't a strawman.

To go back to your original point, most open world games are very poor games stricto sensu, they mostly act as virtual toys. And sure, they can be good and enjoyable to people that can project their imagination into them, but that's regardless of their innate quality as games.

You know your post goes right in the trash when you start off with buzz phrases like "rose tinted glasses", right?

This is a problem on both ends, by the way. You have retro games who hate new games and modern gamers who hate old games, and both are cancer.

No. Hipsters do.

Pretty much this. Gameplay=everything. We are still playing pong. Look at rocket league

vast majority of modern video games have the passion sucked out of them by men in suits and their leftist HR cliques, or even vice versa.

cuphead is a pretty rare exception and it's telling from how the elitist (((anti-GG))) media hated it so much, as it flies in the face of their postmodernist bauhaus bolshevik bullshit they like to call "modern AAA western video games"

No. There have always been just a few really good games each gen. And those few games are 10 times better these days.

There are many "hidden gems" from your childhood. Buy but you wouldn't play them these days let alone pay 60 dollars for them. You remember them so fondly because it's your childhood.

This

t. gamedev

It's a strawman because your fact doesn't apply to my examples. It applies to Assassin's Creed, but not to FF, Horizon and other games. So it's not an argument, it's a problem Assassin's Creed specifically has, you really can't play that game without the markers and the mini-map.

You're wrong, but neither of us has arguments, let's leave it at that I guess.

every one of my points is objectively true

horizon is an abortion

>rose-tinted glasses are a buzzword

Generally older games seem to have more effort and thought put into them and working with more simplistic assets means being able to depict more things that can't be done with assets aiming for realism (and looking outdated in a year) and being forced to make the art style work for its keep.
The continuous piggybacking on established concepts is also bad with the worst type of 3D games also being the most prolific, namely the cover based TPS skeleton.
You still see the occasional AA or indie game be not shit but they're pretty rare to witness.
Open world is a way to put larger numbers on the box without producing more unique full content. At best you're getting decent bite-sized content (which is a nicer way of saying commute/toilet gaming) at worst you're getting a shitty questmarker slog.
There is something to be said for proper structure that isn't just corridors and railroads.

>i dont have an argument but its not a buzzword bro things were always this bad!!!

tick tock kike

Literally everything word Sup Forums doesn't understand or agree with is a buzzword

every word

>Dude you just have rose tinted glasses

is the definition of a buzzword cop-out non-argument

It's not a very strong argument, but it's not a buzzword

it is a buzzword

you lost two arguments at once

>men in suits
>their leftist HR cliques

Does not compute.
Very little that leftists about so called SJW and US modern feminist (if anything the fatc that US people think of them as leftists just goes to show how far off center to the right their political spectrum happens to be), if anything they're what happens when the right and center-right appropriates the discourse of the left while still enforcing the very same marginalizing processes. Here, ironically, in the name of inclusion.
For the men in suits, it's just your good old divide and conquer by any other name, but with the satisfaction of being able to lie to yourself and pretend you're on the good side.

It's not just a problem of whether you can or can't, but of how the experience is qualitatively impacted.
You technically can play Oblivion or Skyrim without quest market, but the games haven't been designed for it and they will play significantly different. Conversely, I would go as far as to say that if the game has a minimap that can be removed without impact whatsoever, then it's poorly designed, as the mini map shouldn't be there period. It's not bringing anything.