Let's be honest here, were video games really that much better in the past? Most of them were shovelware, and had artificial difficulty to lengthen the playtime. It seems more like rose tinted glasses to me.
 |
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
|
Let's be honest here, were video games really that much better in the past?
yes
there was more of a focus on minute to minure to minute gameplay than "story driven narratives" and graphcis so real that you can count the hairs on 2B's ass
They were just different. You can get 15k hours out of one game today. Games back then just didn't have that milage.
Modern games go for a more slow drip feed of dopamine skinner box kind of design, whereas games back in the day were more instant action kind of deal. That's why you can spend hundreds of hours on modern games.
No, modern games are definitely more fun. Games like Ark Survival and DayZ are what I dreamed of being real back then. Nice buzzwords btw
to be fair, nothing since dayz has come close to dayz. mod day z was the peak as well, standalone was worse and mod dayz in its prime is up there for one of the greatest games ever conceived.
>to be fair, nothing since dayz has come close to dayz. mod day z
How is that "to be fair"? It's a modern game that is great, and it somehow gets discredited because it's unique? Why the frick does this board try to hate good games so much?
dayz was 10 years ago anon...
Is 10 years a long time for a zoomer?
considering a lot of those years had no games and the only thing people care about these days are multiplayer garbage that try to keep you hooked like drugs
it seems like forever
>multiplayer garbage that try to keep you hooked like drugs
So DayZ
>10 years was always retro
Retro isn't an age, it's a style of the past
well the dayz alpha was 2012. so from then to now is almost the same amount of time as the original legend of zelda to ocarina of time. so it's kind of a long time, yeah. 10 years was always retro. dayz in particular predates the ps4 so it's a ps3 era game. ps3 is retro.
I don't like how modern gaming drowns you with fake achievements.
What do you mean by fake achievements?
3rd - 7th gens were really the golden age. yes, a lot of it was shovelware, but so it is today. back before corporate interests figured out how to optimally produce a focus tested, design-by-committee, board approved, highly commodified, homogeneous experience that ticks all the boxes of the lowest common denominator and is guaranteed to turn a profit, there was an era of experimentation and a genuine drive to test the systems that were being produced. nowadays, there are some good games, but these highly refined experiences are the end result of all of that testing, and publishers don't seem to be interested in taking risks in terms of how games are developed. they just instead want to produce a easily digestible movie-game, start franchises, and keep the gravy train of industry moving along.
Shovelware back then could release today with nothing but a graphics overall and be seen as a masterpiece
>Let's be honest here, were video games really that much better in the past?
So much better you stupid zoomer. Yeah what you said is definitely true. A lot of shovelware did exist that you could obviously skip. However even shitty games might be worth a try depending on what it is since they might just be short anyways as were so many games back in the day. The great games though are classics talked about even today for a reason zoomie. You also got exactly what you paid for. There wasn't no online to patch things up if developers fricked up. The game had better ship with the player able to complete it. There were actual genres still back in those days so the variety was very sweet to experience. Even lower budget games could shine among the AAA.
Its real tiring how much you gays just really don't get it. Of course there are great games today. Every era of gaming will have its good and bad. There is so many layers though as to why gaming today has gotten to be so terrible that just did not exist back in the 90s and sadly it will never go back to being that glorious ever again. Better tech does not necessarily mean better games and it damn sure doesn't mean a better industry.
New copypasta?
I mean if you want it to be go ahead. I barely post on here anymore.
Very stupid comparison. Go ahead and like your modern games. Doesn't change the fact they feel like a ripoff and are full of wokeism and trannies. And I happen to think they are overrated garbage shit anyways even if I could somehow ignore all of that including the numerous amount of monetization israelitery. I'd rather just play another Castlevania game for the trillionth time then whatever shit Microsoft will be cooking up for their consumers.
>Doesn't change the fact they feel like a ripoff and are full of wokeism and trannies
You should play better games.
>I'd rather just play another Castlevania game for the trillionth time
Have fun. I'm going to play and enjoy F Zero 99.
>So much better you stupid zoomer
Lol, no. I definitely have more fun with modern games. I barely think about older games and I have every console and PC that would let me play them. Maybe once every two years I binge on my 90s stuff but that's it. This is like arguing landlines are better than smart phones. You're just wrong.
what are your favorite games then?
No matter what I say I will never get your approval
Pussy
Fine. My most hours in the last 5 years are on:
The Long Dark
Ark Survival
Dayz
Smash Bros 4 and Ultimate
Mario Kart 8D
Deathroad to Canada
Battlefield 1
Mario Maker
Rocket League
Fall Guys
Monster Hunter Gen Ultimate
Monster Hunter World
Monster Hunter 3U
Everybody's Golf
Sea of Thieves
Project Zomboid
Frostpunk
This war of mine
Pokemon SwSh
Pokemon Lets Go
GTAV
Subnautica
Minecraft
>u r casual!!! Normie!!!!
Don't fricking care. Never sought validation from posters on this site once in my life.
Pretty good taste aside from pokemon and gta.
ok so what do you like about these games that makes them better than games from the supposed "golden age" or at the very least previous gens? minecraft at this point is more than a decade old, I'm sure some 10 year old kid looks at it and shares the same sentiments you have about older games.
I must be too old for most people on this site. I don't consider anything gamecube/PS2 and later old. Modern gaming objectively started at Dreamcast.
Most of the genres in that list didn't even exist in the 90s
>Modern gaming objectively started at Dreamcast.
No, it objectively started at the 360. The Dreamcast was basically a home arcade machine.
If you want to put GTA3 and SA in the same boat as Spy Hunter and Duck Hunt then you're free to be as wrong as you please
You are the one who is wrong. 7th gen is what started the most shitty trends that are still here today, and GTA3 and SA are unironically more video gamey than the ones that came after them.
You would have to be extremely young to think there was any sort of break in modern gaming between 6th and 7th gens. All that was added was more online multiplayer with the same gen 6 genres still alive and well.
I'm 30 and you're wrong.
Same, you get used to it though, you just have to realise most of Ganker didn't even exist back then
yeah but anon was saying that
>we're arguing that landlines are better than smartphones
and I don't really think that analogy applies. it's more like we're saying that works of old are more tasteful and meaningful than some new age hippie artfrom that is essentially women shitting out eggs from her vegana onto a canvas or something, and I don't think anyone can really make the argument that tech has advanced so much that the mechanics in a game like, say, thief, are somehow superseded by what can be found in games today.
>it's more like we're saying that works of old are more tasteful and meaningful than some new age hippie artfrom that is essentially women shitting out eggs from her vegana onto a canvas or something
That's because you're unfairly comparing the absolute best of old to the absolute worst of new
What is the absolute best of new? Cyberpunk? Baldur's Gate 3?
The games I play
Cyberpunk and Elden Ring are fun. Baldur's Gate 3 is a giant pile of dog shit.
the modern industry is filled with all manner of fricked up practices, and people don't like it. of course, this doesn't always reflect on the quality of the games produced. for example, I can readily admit that RE4R is probably a better version of the game technically, but also be against the idea of remakes in principle. so, while games have gotten much more technically impressive, whether they're "better" or not than their predecessors depends on your sensibilities as a consumer, as a "gamer" and as a critic. younger people won't know what it's like to live in a world without microtransactions, DLC, battle passes, and all the other bullshit that plagues the industry today, so they have no reference point through which they could begin to understand the qualms of older generations.
I think it's a relevant point that gets throw by the wayside when people only want to focus on technical achievement.
>for example, I can readily admit that RE4R is probably a better version of the game technically, but also be against the idea of remakes in principle
Both RE4 and its remake are modern games anon
yeah but the amount of time between the original and the remake is enough that you can compare the original as a "classic" to its modern remake. the original came out in, what, 2003? that's 20 years ago. if RE4 were a person, it'd be able to shitpost here, and he'd be complaining about his younger zoomer self.
yeah well you'd be a fricking moron if you think I give a shit about what you have to say if you don't elaborate on why the remake isn't technically better than its predecessor.
>yeah but the amount of time between the original and the remake is enough that you can compare the original as a "classic" to its modern remake
I wouldn't call it classic. It's the usual 3rd person over the shoulder shooter action game with dated graphics. The remake is just that different style, modeled after that TLOU like nu-movie action genre.
>what, 2003? that's 20 years ago
Yeah things haven't changed much since gen 7
*gen 6
I don't need to elaborate shit. The gameplay in the original RE4 is a billion times better than the remake, and if you can't see that then you're just a cumguzzling queer.
>I can readily admit that RE4R is probably a better version of the game technically
You'd be a fricking moron then.
>technically
which means very little because games are all about the artistic values and intentions
OG RE4 drop kicks remake unless you are afraid of touching old games or some insane nonsense about being politically correct for the world today
I personally cannot help but be offended just looking at modern games with pseudo realistic video game characters that were clearly meant to be anime in the first place and replaced characters with bad lookalikes or even someone who does not look anything like the original character
>Survival crafting games
>Multiplayer games
Yeah no shit you wouldn't like the old games.
>Nothing but dopamine farming bullshit survival games
Hahah homosexual, play a real game.
Those are real games. What do you like, homosexual?
>Binge
Cringe
Ok fine. "I played a lot of"
Fricking happy, schizoid?
>the ultimate gamer fuel
I'm a fellow zoomer (2001) and I think you're a homosexual. There are plenty of meaningful and fun experiences in old games. If you can get Sid Meier's Railroads to work (drag and drop a .dll) it's very fun and holds it's own against most modern games. That's not to say "oh exclusively play these games that only work on 32 bit windows and modified saturn they're fun trust" OR "don't bother with old games modern ones are all you need PLEASE download the anticheat AND keep it connected online at all times!!" A little bit of everything and some discernment, patience, will be much more fruitiful for you. Just have a little more optimism is all man.
90s games are modern
Are we going to pretend to be mentally brain damaged just to argue shitty movie games are better?
Yeah zoomers are eternally assmad they grew up in the wrong generation
Check this out. The good games were good, but on the other hand the bad games were bad. Fricked up right?
>Let's be honest here, were video games really that much better in the past? Most of them were shovelware, and had artificial difficulty to lengthen the playtime. It seems more like rose tinted glasses to me.
More or less, the past is vast, only good games are remembered, the now is short and you have to wade through the filth to find the gems. For me who likes metroidvania's it might as well be a golden age though.
I will say this, even if you hate most modern games, all the games of the past with few exceptions are either cheap as frick or emulatable for free. You have access to everything in a way that would make some chump paying $60 for SNES games jaw drop.
Most Games now are Shovelware too they are called Indie Games
>Let's be honest here, were video games really that much better in the past?
Depends on the era. Pre-1995 PC games were way better than consoles because consoles were mostly making the equivalent of arcade knockoff titles, but then that basically flipped and the best games in the late 90s were mainly on console and ended up peaking in 98.
Otherwise gaming is in a better position right now compared to saw, the early-mid 2000s, where you had piles of moviegame shovelware.
>Pre-1995 PC games were way better than consoles
Frick no, are you high?
i can't think of more than a handful of old 90's-80's games worth playing today
no.
the games people still remember now are good, but there was a lot of trash back then just like now
we didn't dwell on it like we do today because billions of dollars and significant chunks of a developer's lifespan weren't spent developing them
it'd be a lot easier if there was actual decent shit
instead of alpha builds with almost nothing interesting with the same asset flop graphics but that's too much to ask out of anyone but fromsoft nintendo and annie may games
I prefer the way games were designed in the past. I have no need for a game to become my full time job. I was fine renting a PS2 game on Friday, finishing it, and dropping it in the box on Sunday. Every weekend a fresh experience.
Today's games are so padded out with "content" and "systems" they just put me to frickin sleep.
But I guess some people like that shit. At least I get game for me every once in a while. Callisto Protocol and Immortals of Aveum and whatnot.
It feels like mid shelf games are the biggest victim of the current industry. You are either an 80-120h AAA slog or an indie title though some of those are well done enough to partially fill the void, especially if you are a 2D fan.
The 8-12h long 3D game that costs $40-50, looks good but not amazing and is built with fun instead of engagement in mind is a rarer breed.
Entire genres have died out and disappeared because AA games aren't financially viable anymore. People just want their AAA movie games and indie slop.
Only good ones got wide distribution because the market was much smaller.
Up until the PS2 era it was much harder to run into shit games especially if you lived outside the US
>were video games really that much better in the past?
Going by all the remakes and remasters, yes.
>ports and remasters consistently BTFO modern vidya
>countless indies can only try (and usually fail) to imitate games from the 3rd-6th gen, let alone actually surpass them
You can reduce the argument to the greatest hits being fondly remembered, but it still doesn't change the part where older gen games still usually BTFO of modern vidya.
yes
Yes. Making games is too easy now. Adversity leads to greater creativity as the devs work around the limitations. They constantly had to think about how to push the technology.
Dev cycles are also way too fricking long now because games are so bloated. Mega Man 2 was made in 4 months in effectively the dev's spare time. You can't sustain that sort of drive over years.
Depends on the game. I remember getting extra satisfaction out of defeating arcana for the snes in my time.
Quality has improved overall. Look at the shit posts of today. 7-8 out of 10 is considered crap despite those games easily having 20+ unqiue hours of gameplay. A fricking game above average is bad.
In the past many were short, crap, and/or copy pasta. The great ones were great because in a sea of shit you had to finish it.
>7-8 out of 10 is considered crap
Maybe those games aren't 7-8 then. Maybe they're actually more like 4-5 out of 10, and you're just really swayed by marketing hype.
98, 99, 2000
I still replay games from these years decades later.
2007-2009 another great few years.
Nostalgia will do that.
>is just nostalgia bro!
laziest cope for growing up in the worst time in recent history besides the great depression
keep denying reality
Modern gamers are such pussies they'd never be able to beat pick related.
>Let's be honest here, were video games really that much better in the past?
yes
They were way more social back then. All the kids from my neighborhood would come over to play snes.
>Most of them were shovelware
Most games NOW are literally unfinished.
Pick your poison.
Yeah
>made with the philosophy that good games sell better = more money
>no dlc or patches required
>ran better on average
>less meddling by corpo suits in the design decisions
>no "global audience" bs
You're delusional. Games are a business, always has been.
You're delusional if you think that AAA games making you pay for additional content after already buying them for 70 bucks is in any way comparable to older games giving you a complete package for a one-off purchase
They would have done the same if they could. Nothing has changed. People make games for money, and that's it.
They would have, but they didn't. And that anon wasn't talking about what the devs would have done in some hypothetical situation, but what actually happened. So this is a moot point.
>giving you a complete package for a one-off purchase
Games back then were, like, 3 hours long. A game now can keep you going for hundreds of hours. That's a more "complete package" if you ask me.
And how many of those hours are repetitive grinding, forced walking segments and travelling across vast open spaces with nothing of interest?
they had kino drum and bass music you can listen to today out of context instead of bootleg Hans Zimmer shit and soulless synthwave knockoffs
so there's that
They had repetitive tunes because the tech was primitive. Sound is much more complex today.
>sound is more complex these days
>generic ambient tracks
just lol this is just the oddest cope and reflection
internet and shit like smart phones ruined gaming where you had to actually physically be with your friends to play games together.
Theres also the aspect that games back then were kind of like the wildwest and shit like smash bros 64 or golden eye/perfect dark were janky games but were good because there was no formula and the games stood on based on the limitations and the creativity of the devs doing what they wanted designing games they wanted to play.
Nowadays everything has to be balanced or people whine on the internet, there has to be guides, there has to be datamining, there has to be console tie ins. Major games just copy each other and work by focus test group.
The problem is a combination of business strategy combined with human nature and technology ruined games because everyone wants more features, everyone wants more dopamine, more characters more more more while having ease of access. The problem with modern videogames is a lack of creavity combined with a lack of real conviction or investment when you can just download the next steam game whatever for 5-20$ and instantly play it the games lose their value.
I remember back in the day fricking buying battlefront 2 and supersmash bros having no clue what they were and having a blast with them.
Really I think the problem with modern videogames is we now have standards and reviews and datamining so there are no surprises and no real genuine challenge when you can just look up a guide on youtube and copy it. You get e-celebs and you just copy them, you get marketed the games they tell you are good.
It becomes an effort in trying to find a game that has something unique and surprises you and gaming to me feels like that movie The Menu where everything is ruined by the various soulless buttholes driving the industry and the mass consumers who ruin it as well as it used to be a nerdy hobby. The problem really is that its all become about money and all about trying to be cool instead Being
Nice thumbnail
>Really I think the problem with modern videogames is we now have standards
Make this a fricking banner.
People were generally happier with less as the whole gaming sector had way less marketing bullshit.
You could buy a kid Age of Empires II and he would play that game every day for years and enjoy every second of it.
Nowadays you get bombarded with ads telling you that you NEED to buy the newest hot thing on that market. People don't put much time into anything that isn't a liveservice constantly advertised microtransaction hell.
Sure. Options already exist in the past. You didn't NEED to replay Super Mario World 20 times before moving on to the next thing. But many people did as their was no marketing pressure on them.
>What? You are still playing Elden Ring?
>Come on that game got released over a year ago everyone is now playing Starfield and Baldurs Gate look at the Steam numbers you are literally the only guy who still cares move on already
That sort of marketing would only ever work on extroverts
Which most people are.
There is a reason why autism simulators like Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron have players that put 10k hours into those game each.
>Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron have players that put 10k hours into those game each.
Guilty.
I think generally yes since not every AAA game was garbage. Though having recently played a handful of PS1 games again they don't play well. Dreamcast was peak fun game feel
>Controller design constantly evolving to give developers new tools to work with
>Devs needed to understand how their tools worked, down to the eccentricities of the chips used by the hardware the game was running on
>Artists needed to understand how their concepts would translate to models/pixel art and how they would be rendered on something like a CRT
>Games really needed to try to stand out
>Publishers needed to do more than be shittier banks and marketing agency middlemen
>Limited space among other things meant that gameplay and assets needed to be well thought out to maintain any kind of real playtime
>The arrival of matchmaking systems killed communities for games, since only LAN, local multiplayer and dedicated servers can even hope to sustain one without degenerating into eceleb and esports shit from outside of the actual community to sustain itself
Yes, even after you reason away the fact that we only really remember and still play the games that aren't shit. There aren't even AAA games anymore, not really. What we have now are games with overinflated budgets to buffer out shitty management and to compensate for the fact that their new developers, that they will likely burn out before the project is really done, will be learning essential skills on the go.
We're sort of at a tipping point where the best practices that were acquired during the 7th gen bubble and post-7th gen bubble pop are being discarded for the utter trash that they were, so we might see good games start to come out again, albeit mostly from the indie scene.
>Let's be honest here, were video games really that much better in the past? Most of them were shovelware, and had artificial difficulty to lengthen the playtime. It seems more like rose tinted glasses to me.