That title isn't original to me; I've lifted it from a CNet article
(read it here >https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/in-2023-all-the-best-video-games-are-old/) >where the reporter comments on how it seems that, well, all the best
video games are old. It's a conceit that resonates with me
emotionally, even if I don't really agree with it intellectually.
Because - as much as I love my cache of old-timey video games - I also >recognize there are some good titles being made these days. Plus,
having collected a heap of older games, I can assure you that most of
those titles were shitty too. So overall, the quoted article comes
across as an old man yelling at how things were better when he was
young.
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
That title isn't original to me; I've lifted it from a CNet article
(read it here >>https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/in-2023-all-the-best-video-games-are-old/)
where the reporter comments on how it seems that, well, all the best
video games are old. It's a conceit that resonates with me
emotionally, even if I don't really agree with it intellectually.
Because - as much as I love my cache of old-timey video games - I also >>recognize there are some good titles being made these days. Plus,
having collected a heap of older games, I can assure you that most of
those titles were shitty too. So overall, the quoted article comes
across as an old man yelling at how things were better when he was
young.
I think you can make an objective case that it's true. Here are the
years the top ten most played games on Steam right now were released:
2012
2013
2017
2019
2013
2018
2022
2013
2007
2017
There's only one game that could be called new on that list. By the
end of the year half of them will be at least 10 years old. Sure all
those games multiplayer games are still actively being updated, and most
are free-to-play, but it shows you that even kids today aren't all that >distracted by the lastest games. It's not much different when you look at >what people are spending money on in the top 10 global sellers on Steam.
Four "new" games and six "old" games.
Still, I can't help but feel that- while there's the occassional great
game still being made - there's something wrong with the industry as a
whole,
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:32:12 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson ><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
Still, I can't help but feel that- while there's the occassional great
game still being made - there's something wrong with the industry as a >>whole,
Oh yes there is.
Fuck, yes there is.
I will just quote American McGee here for a moment:
"For my part, I have also reached an endpoint with "Alice" and with
game production in general. I have no other ideas or energy left to
apply toward getting a new Alice game made. Nor do I have any interest
in pursuing new game ideas within the context of the current
environment for game development."
source: https://www.patreon.com/posts/end-of-adventure-81049672
You make a lot of interesting comments in this newsgroup and - even
though I might not always agree with you - I am usually happy to hear
from your viewpoint, but on this particular topic we cannot agree.
There are many things wrong with the games industry, but making the
games more accessible to other lifestyles is not one of them, and your
rage against the idea is very troubling. To dismiss them all as
'snowflakes' is insulting and wrong.
Wow, good way to take McGee's comments out of context.
(A ramble)
That title isn't original to me; I've lifted it from a CNet article
(read it here https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/in-2023-all-the-best-video-games-are-old/) where the reporter comments on how it seems that, well, all the best
video games are old. It's a conceit that resonates with me
emotionally, even if I don't really agree with it intellectually.
Because - as much as I love my cache of old-timey video games - I also recognize there are some good titles being made these days. Plus,
having collected a heap of older games, I can assure you that most of
those titles were shitty too. So overall, the quoted article comes
across as an old man yelling at how things were better when he was
young.
Still, I can't help but feel that- while there's the occassional great
game still being made - there's something wrong with the industry as a
whole, that younger gamers are being deprived of a greatness which we
older folks got to experience but has since been ripped out of modern
games. Because while video games have always been about making money,
it never felt so crass and blatant as it does with modern titles;
'back in the day' there seemed to be some respect for the idea of
selling a product on its merits rather than using psychological
trickery to bolster the bottom line with microtransactions. Games were
still allowed to be art - even if overly commercialized pabulum
designed to appeal to a middle-of-the-road audience - rather than a storefront made to push further sales, be it MTX, DLC, or to push
advertising or gambling mechanics.
It's not that there aren't games that don't follow this trend, but
these tend to be the exceptions, and never seem to reach the same
heights and popularity as the more manipulative titles. There's always
a "Thank God for the Indies", who push the boundaries in a way the
triple-A publishers rarely try.
And I've no idea if younger gamers feel the same as I do. Do kids who
grew up with RoBlox and Fortnite and FIFA XCIV, for whom the endles
hunt for accomplishments and cosmetic hats is ordinary, really care
for how the industry has changed? Do they see it as worse, or do they
look at our old-timey games - which came complete in box without
endless expansions - as boring and limited? Could they find a game
like Gauntlet or Wing Commander (remastered to match modern gamer's expectations of graphics and controls) entertaining, if it doesn't
have MTX and endless procedural missions that drag the game out
forever? I admit I'm not close enough to the younger generation to
answer that definitively. Maybe I too am an older person grumbling
about the salad days of my youth.
But it still seems a shame that kids aren't given the same
opportunities to experience the same sort of games I played...
The article is a bit it was so much better in my day forgetting about
all the trash that was released in that period.
Saying that I basically
agree with your point though that it's not the games industry as a whole >where the problem really lies but instead what's happened to the big
budget releases. As for younger gamers (horrible generalisation there
but anyway) do they even realise there's a whole sector that isn't based >around psychological warfare on it's own customers?
Saying that I basically
agree with your point though that it's not the games industry as a whole
where the problem really lies but instead what's happened to the big
budget releases. As for younger gamers (horrible generalisation there
but anyway) do they even realise there's a whole sector that isn't based
around psychological warfare on it's own customers?
There are a lot of good games available these days. Even if I don't
care for some of them - Roblox? Dredge? Call of Duty XXXXXIV? I'd
argue that they've got a lot more skill and care put into them than
the average game of the 80s and 90s. And the selection is so vast that
pretty much anyone these days can find a game that appeals to their particular taste and style. It's not the core games I fault so much as
the mechanics added to those games (or worse, stripped away) by the publishers to suck out every last dime from their customers.
On 24/04/2023 20:29, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Saying that I basically
agree with your point though that it's not the games industry as a whole >>> where the problem really lies but instead what's happened to the big
budget releases. As for younger gamers (horrible generalisation there
but anyway) do they even realise there's a whole sector that isn't based >>> around psychological warfare on it's own customers?
There are a lot of good games available these days. Even if I don't
care for some of them - Roblox? Dredge? Call of Duty XXXXXIV? I'd
argue that they've got a lot more skill and care put into them than
the average game of the 80s and 90s. And the selection is so vast that
pretty much anyone these days can find a game that appeals to their
particular taste and style. It's not the core games I fault so much as
the mechanics added to those games (or worse, stripped away) by the
publishers to suck out every last dime from their customers.
Putting the MTX issue to one side I still find a problem with the big >publishers is that even that the core games are well polished (well
generally anyway) the innovation side seems to be, shall we say somewhat >lacking. As always though, I can't blame them as I'm pretty sure I'd do
the same in their position considering the cost of developing a triple-A >game.
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 11:08:34 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2023 20:29, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Saying that I basically
agree with your point though that it's not the games industry as a whole >>>> where the problem really lies but instead what's happened to the big
budget releases. As for younger gamers (horrible generalisation there
but anyway) do they even realise there's a whole sector that isn't based >>>> around psychological warfare on it's own customers?
There are a lot of good games available these days. Even if I don't
care for some of them - Roblox? Dredge? Call of Duty XXXXXIV? I'd
argue that they've got a lot more skill and care put into them than
the average game of the 80s and 90s. And the selection is so vast that
pretty much anyone these days can find a game that appeals to their
particular taste and style. It's not the core games I fault so much as
the mechanics added to those games (or worse, stripped away) by the
publishers to suck out every last dime from their customers.
Putting the MTX issue to one side I still find a problem with the big
publishers is that even that the core games are well polished (well
generally anyway) the innovation side seems to be, shall we say somewhat
lacking. As always though, I can't blame them as I'm pretty sure I'd do
the same in their position considering the cost of developing a triple-A
game.
Fair argument, although I'd counter - historically - that really isn't
all that unusual either. Again, a lot of the older games were rehashes
of the popular trend of the day too (the number of terrible brawlers
I've waded through following the release of Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat... ugh!).
Arguably it's a bit more notable today because - forty years ago -
there were a lot more obvious and untried ideas, whereas these days
many genres have crystalized to the point where most novelty comes
from blending genres rather than creating new ones.
And - like you pointed out - the finances of the situation greatly
affect the amount of risk you're willing to take. A garage-programmer
whos success (or lack thereof) will only affect him is probably going
to be more willing to do something different than a multi-billion
dollar company that not only has thousands of employees but also
shareholders to keep happy. A known quanity like "Call of Duty CLXIV"
will sell a guaranteed million units, while a new game like "Mirrors
Edge" might do gangbusters, or might get ignored; it's easy to see why
the former is chosen more often by the triple-A publishers. Large
business prefer certainty and predictibility. But the Indies can - and
often have to, in order to stand out - take chances.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: thank god for Indies. They
are the engine of creativity that keeps game development evolving.
Sure, a lot of their games are low quaility but they do the
experimenting that - once their ideas are tested and tried out -
triple-A publishers build upon.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 108:01:45 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,587 |