Better Games Today?

[Bolivar]

Kotaku (http://kotaku.com/5468602/does-the-video-game-industry-need-a-time-out) & Gamespy (http://www.gamespy.com/articles/106/1067470p2.html) inspired thread...

So reading these two articles made me want to throw up. Basically there's a part in the original Gamespy article that posits that not only were fewer games released back in the day, but fewer good games were released.

And the example he gives is that the 10th best game of 1994 was Boogerman...

A stunning, shining example of why some people shouldn't be allowed to use the internet. Mostly, and ironically, because a simple Google search of "Top 10 Games of 1994" unleashed a wonderful sensation of nostalgia for me. For the SEGA Genesis there were timeless classics like Sonic 3, Streets of Rage III, Virtua Racer, Super smurfing Street Figher II (console), Mortal Kombat II, and SHINING FORCE II. A PC 1994 list reveals Sim City 2000, Theme Park, Doom II, Star Wars: Tie Fighter, and WARCRAFT: ORCS & HUMANS. The only thing I really need to say to represent other consoles is Super Metroid, anything else would be redundant.

I think it's safe to say most of us would agree 1994 was a far better year for gaming than 2009.

Now, maybe I'm getting worked up too much because after all, the guy who wrote this is a comedian. But if he was jesting with Boogerman, Stephen Totilo of Kotaku didn't get the joke. There's absolutely a growing number of journalists who feel this way, and not only does it nauseate me, it starkly contrasts an emergent conclusion we had here in one of our recap threads looking back on the last decade of gaming. I'm of the mind (and some of you are here) that there was far more crap, truly bad games in every sense of standards, back then that were utterly unplayable and an insult to the medium.

However, there's far more mediocre games that we have to sort through today. It seems like there's more good games because we currently have a Cartel of publishers, journalists, and retailers, congruently working their utter hardest to convince us that (x) or (y) game will be a big event that we all need to play.

But that can't be the only explanation, and reading these two articles I've found the other. Stephen Totilo, Michael McWhertor, and whoever else at Kotaku have a very valid and real reason for honestly believing in their hearts that Modern Warfare 2 is a top class game:

They simply didn't play any good games back in the day. And they, and many of these other clowns on top gaming sites shouldn't be game journalists for it.

For those with attention deficiency disorders, here is a summarized snippet of the general ramblings for you to ponder over - (I love our sites replacement for "Too Long; Didn't Read):

They're trying to rewrite history. Our history, yours and mine.

[Peegee]

You can bypass the forum filters for tlhttp://forums.eyesonff.com/images/eoff_smilies/biggrin.gif;dr very easily, but don't tell the mods

I am not sure what you mean by good games. In terms of visuals, new games always beat old games. Remember when Doom 3 was groundbreaking? Nowadays, computers can handle the full video settings. Back when it was released no computer could handle the max settings.

Gameplay wise, I will have to say WC: O+H was awesome, and comparatively superior to other games. One can argue that most games today are just duplilcates of each other, but then we have games like Batman: Arkham Asylum which I understand was just a MOD of a game. Wat.

So yeah, I think we need some definitions for 'better', because old games are better than new games, and the best new games are better than all games =)

[Slothy]

The only thing I really need to say to represent other consoles is Super Metroid, anything else would be redundant.

Final Fantasy VI came out in 1994. :p


I'm of the mind (and some of you are here) that there was far more crap, truly bad games in every sense of standards, back then that were utterly unplayable and an insult to the medium.

However, there's far more mediocre games that we have to sort through today.

I agree with this general sentiment, but that doesn't explain why the bar on crappy titles has been raised, and I don't agree that it's simply publishers and media trying to convince us that the next big thing is a must have that you will die if you don't play. There was plenty of that in 1994 too. It may not have become as prevalent, but odds are thsoe of us who were heavy into gaming back then sought out as much gaming media as we do now.

The largest reason I think there are fewer crap games and more mediocre games is simply that developers and publishers aren't total morons and have learned a few things in the last fifteen years. We can take the FPS genre as probably the easiest example. People were nuts over Goldeneye when it came out, and I'll admit that I still love it. But to say it is by any means good by todays standards would be a joke. It's easily one of the worst controlling shooters I've ever played and it's filled with slow and stupid AI to help make up for it. No one would ever make an FPS that controlled that poorly these days, because everyone knows how to make an FPS that controls well in general. They may try some new things that don't quite work, but it'll be pretty rare that any developer will put out something that's literally unplayable because it's pretty well known how to do it well.

It's much the same as with 2D games way back when to be honest. There was an unbelievable amount of crap in the early days of 2D gaming. No one had a clue how to make a game well early on. Even during the days of the NES things could be of questionable quality. At least until some people figured it out and some pretty general genre conventions were established. Same thing happened with 3D. In the late 90's it was largely crap by today's standards.

So as a result of everyone seeing how it's done right over time, we've mostly seen the lower limit of game quality raised up. At least that's my take on it. Sure we still have the occasional game that's utterly abysmal, but it's usually the result of either an inexperienced dev team, a publisher pulling the plug and shoving it out the door, or a new idea gone horribly, horribly wrong.

[Goldenboko]

I think the bar on mediocre games nowadays has also been raised by the amount of money that's typically put into projects, even bad ones, is higher. Gaming has become much more of a refined business, the days of "garage-made" games is basically over.

[NorthernChaosGod]

I can't be the only that doesn't fawn over CoD games, right? I feel like a game that gets such high praise should feel like more than just some sort of spiritual successor to CS.

While I certainly feel like there are less mind-numbingly awful games today as there were years ago, I also feel like there are far less truly amazing games. It's like everyone knows how to not make a :bou::bou::bou::bou: game, but they also know that making a decent game is more profitable than making a game akin to the second coming of Christ.

[Goldenboko]

but they also know that making a decent game is more profitable than making a game akin to the second coming of Christ.

I wouldn't say that, from what I understand both Uncharted games came in under-budget, and where more than profitable.

[I Don't Need A Name]

These days, games are judged on whether they have good graphics, and whether they're first person shooters called Halo or Call Of Duty.

It's a joke to say that games in this generation are better than the ones we grew up with.

[Madame Adequate]

The biggest obstacle to my going back in time is that I would have to play the games from back then. They were great for what they were but there are very few of them you could put on the shelves today and - aesthetics aside - expect them to be hits. We love those things because we can contextualize them, we experienced how revolutionary and awesome they were back in the day, and we have plenty of nostalgia heaped on top of it.

But in reality if you offer someone who has never played games either a Mega Drive or a 360, they're more likely to choose the latter. Very few of the games in the OP can actually compete on a level playing field. The ones in genres which have since largely died, such as platformers and metroidvania games, can. Otherwise? I love SC2K as much as the next bloke but that doesn't mean it's going to compare with Sim City 4 + Rush Hour + NAM + Various other addons/content.

I don't really know why anyone is unhappy though. We have all the classics from yesteryear to play, and we also have 15 years of additions to that roster. I actually don't really relish a gaming scene without the MW and Halo games. I also like having games like Arkham Asylum, Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed II, Fallouts 1 through 3, skate, GTAIII and up, Left 4 Dead, and so forth.

I like loads of games from 1994 and before. I also like loads of games since. Sure, there's a lot of :bou::bou::bou::bou: to sift through, but that's just Sturgeon's Law. It's the other 10% that's always the worthwhile part. And honestly, I'm much happier today knowing that if I pick a game at random I'm likely to get something that I might still get a few hours out of if I'm a fan of the genre, than the genuinely broken things which were readily released back in the early 90s and, especially, before.

I'll just conclude by saying that there are more games these days than I can really play, and I'm limited to just the 360 and PC right now. Yeah, there's a lot out there that's not worth my time and money - but there's a lot that is, and I'm not sure I'm ready to complain about the situation until the latter situation changes. But even if it does, I can just go back and play the things I missed.

[Skyblade]

Bolivar, even if I totally disagreed with your post (which I don't, I agree wholeheartedly), I would never, ever admit it, because you showed love for Shining Force II, a game which never gets enough love.

But, really, none of us here are likely to agree with those articles. The 90's were amazing years for gaming. Yes, there were plenty of truly awful games, but the number of true gems in there was incredible.

[Bolivar]

I agree with this general sentiment, but that doesn't explain why the bar on crappy titles has been raised, and I don't agree that it's simply publishers and media trying to convince us that the next big thing is a must have that you will die if you don't play.

I said the Cartel-Trio of marketing explains why some people might think that there are better games today. As far as why there's more mediocre games, I think you hit the nail on the head, there's been more work to base it on foundation and start from. And like you said about the early 2D and 3D eras, I think the same could be said for the HD-era, there really weren't many games in that first year of the 360 that are worth still playing.


I can't be the only that doesn't fawn over CoD games, right? I feel like a game that gets such high praise should feel like more than just some sort of spiritual successor to CS.

Of course not. I like Modern Warfare 2, beat the campaign 3 times on normal and above, logged countless hours into the multipalyer, and knocked off a good amount of Spec Ops missions. But it wasn't even the best FPS of 2009, much less the best game over all.

But it highlights the convergence of Publishers, Retailers, and Journalists that I mentioned. Everyone was excited for the game going into 2009, and the very teaser-ish teaser set things in motion, but the hype train really got started when Game Informer, which is owned by GameStop, ran an exclusive cover story on it.


They were great for what they were but there are very few of them you could put on the shelves today and - aesthetics aside - expect them to be hits.

I think we should be hesitant to bring marketability into this discussion. It's not really a secret that to make really high sales-numbers you have to capture the attention of young children with access to their parents disposable income. We like to pretend a lot of these aren't children's games, but they are. From Mortal Kombat to Grand Theft Auto, their demographic probably averaged out at middle schoolers. KMart has Call of Duty pajama pants in the young boys section and Burlington Coat Factory has Gears of War boxer shorts in a 360-controller tin case. Nobody loves Gears of War more than my 11-year old nephew named Chase.


I'll just conclude by saying that there are more games these days than I can really play, and I'm limited to just the 360 and PC right now. Yeah, there's a lot out there that's not worth my time and money - but there's a lot that is, and I'm not sure I'm ready to complain about the situation until the latter situation changes. But even if it does, I can just go back and play the things I missed.

This is something I have to co-sign. What I really like about this generation is how quickly prices fall for games with a lot of effort put into them, especially ones with fun multiplayer components. You can get games like Bioshock and Bad Company for less than $20, less than a year after they come out.


I don't really know why anyone is unhappy though.

If you're referring to the articles' authors complaining they don't have time to play everything, I don't understand that either.

But my main concern is that the people writing about games haven't played enough important titles to warrant that position.

[VeloZer0]

I started writing out a list of my top favorite games, and up until ~15th place it was all games from the 90s.

Part of the problem (for me at least) is that the genres I like are either no longer mainstream, or popular. I love games like Donky Kong Country, Super Mario, and especially Sonic & Mega Man X. Unfortunately platformers are very much out of vogue. Though they do get some love on portable consoles, I just don't feel the same effort going in as they once were. New platformer titles seem to just be throwbacks to attract retro gamers, but the old platformers that were made were meant to be masterpieces. (Not saying I enjoy the don't enjoy the new titles, they just don't feel as inspired)
You could say I am just being nostalgic, but I didn't even pick up my first Mega Man game until 2006 and I still think the ones from the 90s were the best.

My other passion is JRPGs, and I strongly dislike the way the genre has moved in the last decade. (Not to get into that here.) Combine that with the growth of the market share of WRPGs (which I don't like), and you can see why I look enviously back to the days of yore.

[Bolivar]

Bolivar, even if I totally disagreed with your post (which I don't, I agree wholeheartedly), I would never, ever admit it, because you showed love for Shining Force II, a game which never gets enough love.

Thanks, man. I always appreciate your Shining Force support, although I gotta admit, it was a game I fell in love with as a young kid, so on one hand it could fall in that category I mentioned of games made/bought by young children. But I replayed I and II 2 summers ago and last summer, respectively, and I had to give it up how perfect and polished each aspect was from the artwork to the music, the approachable yet somewhat deep strategy, and good old fashioned JRPG story.


My other passion is JRPGs, and I strongly dislike the way the genre has moved in the last decade. (Not to get into that here.) Combine that with the growth of the market share of WRPGs (which I don't like), and you can see why I look enviously back to the days of yore.

This is another point I agree with 100%. However, I'm really glad that games like Valkyria Chronicles and Demon's Souls have come out, which strike at a lot of the things I used to like so much, and hopefully White Knight Chronicles gets added to that short list (I think it will). Maybe the direction of JRPG's lately would be another good thread.

[Slothy]

Gaming has become much more of a refined business, the days of "garage-made" games is basically over.

I'm going to have to call BS on this to an extent. As digital distribution has really picked up steam (no pun intended there) there's been something of a resurgence as far as indie titles go. And they don't all have to be limited to low budget affairs either as various game engines are being made more affordable for the little guys. Hopefully we see other technologies become more affordable as well to help these smaller companies make even better games on a technical level.

I honestly think now is a better time than ever to be a small start-up developer.

[Rostum]

It's a joke to say that games in this generation are better than the ones we grew up with.

I disagree. When you look at movies, they've made many years of developing techniques and theory behind framing, composition, lighting, etc. whereas video games have not. In fact, the video game industry had a huge crash before Nintendo came out.

Since the video game industry has been booming over the last two/three decades, we've seen a great amount of development in game design techniques that play on the psychology of gamers. Which is a beautiful thing. The only problem we're seeing nowdays is that people expect the same techniques we've learnt on movies to be incorporated in video games. I don't see why, as to me they are a totally different medium of entertainment.

To me, a lot of people think that earlier decades of video games were better and that's due to either 1) Nostalgia or 2) Lack of technology so all they had to rely on was game play. So in a way, perhaps high budget video games have lost their way a bit in what direction they need to take (which is why you see the increase in popularity of indipendant games as they aren't afraid to experiment, and usually have much lower budgets), but overall we've come a long way and it'd be insane to say video games are worse off now than they were. It's simple not true.

There are some absolute gems out there in this generation that trascend what we had previously experienced.

Edit: I agree with Vivi22, that it is very much BS to say "garage-made" games is over. It's pretty much the opposite now. More and more people are leaving huge companies to start up small indie companies to make smaller games especially for things such as iPhone, Steam, PSN and Xbox Live.

[Shiny]

Yes, I think games have gotten better. The music is of a higher quality -- it's not in midi form anymore for most games. The graphics are also not sub-par. There's a lot more features to games now that were otherwise not possible in earlier games such as the choice of massive multi-playing gaming or co-op online. There's also the just more choices in general when it comes to what you can do in certain games. It's not just one button does one thing and another button does another thing anymore. You can now program buttons to do several different things for certain games. Content wise, the stories have developed with the onslaught of more cinematic; higher quality cut scenes. The only thing I can say that has suffered over the years in terms of gaming is originality. They have milked every popular series for what's it worth.

[Rad Bromance]

It's a joke to say that games in this generation are better than the ones we grew up with.
This is exactly what people who are eight to twelve years old will be saying when they're 25, except they'll be talking about how awesome and thought filled and artsy PS3 and 360 are and how underwhelming and ruined by casuals the PS6 and XBOX1080 gen is.

[NorthernChaosGod]

Xenogears > All

[JKTrix]

I think three key things about the difference between now and then is:

1. Originality (as Shiny mentioned). Not just the 'Milking' of Everything, but just that 'Everything Has Already Been Done'. Which may or may not be true, but it is difficult to come up with something that is entirely new and actually get it made.

2. Japan. It would be difficult for even Final Fantasy Forum-goers to argue that Japan hasn't lost its place as the bulk of console video gaming market share. Not talking about quality at this point, but just the percentage of visible games. The bulk of the games we grew up loving were Japanese, and now they are being forced down by big budget, mass market games. Japan is where we would expect to see things that are original, but the ones that really get the most attention here are the ones that play it safe.

3. Perspective. What you see, or what you choose to see. Just like the folks that caused Bolivar to make this thread, they just didn't see/play the good games from '94. I also think that a lot of people today don't see the great, but smaller gems that get produced today. These mass market games are trying to take up your entire field of vision, and they will if you let them. Unfortunately it's not really possible a lot of the time for these small games to 'get your attention', you might have to go looking for them if you really care.

Another issue is that games are just plain harder to make these days. Tied with the Perspective issue, developers feel like if their game isn't the best and brightest thing out there it doesn't stand a chance. So they spend years and millions of dollars making games, where that time/cost factor wasn't nearly as huge back in the days before 3D.
So sure, you can name off 30 top quality games from 1994 and maybe not half that much for 2009, but comparing them year-over-year is not exactly fair because 'top quality' games take longer to make. And a lot of game companies from 1994 don't even exist now because they can't handle the cost of making new games.

[Bolivar]

Yes, I think games have gotten better. The music is of a higher quality -- it's not in midi form anymore for most games.

This is a weak point because today's video game music is based on generic emulations of hollywood music. Whereas if you look back at the 16-bit RPG's we played, some of them have incredible compositions with a lot of complexity and thought put into them. I said this in the Shining Force thread, but if you look at games like that and Final Fantasy, you can actually recognize parts which are the chorus, the verses, and the bridges. I assume if you looked at Uematsu's sheet of the notes, it would probably be insane and something music students could study.

It's not just one button does one thing and another button does another thing anymore. You can now program buttons to do several different things for certain games.[/QUOTE]

But that's just a different way of doing something, it could easily be implemented poorly. It's a subjective decision that has nothing to do with objective quality, a game that doesn't do this could be infinitely better for an array of reasons.

[QUOT=Omecle]I disagree. When you look at movies, they've made many years of developing techniques and theory behind framing, composition, lighting, etc. whereas video games have not. In fact, the video game industry had a huge crash before Nintendo came out.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure you're referring to something else, but films brought up a great point. When you look at those Noir movies from the 70's, there's a certain kind of eeriness to the ambience of the way they were done and constrained by technology that produces a surrounding feeling unpalpable to today's films, which look generic with their standardized usages.

I think the same holds true for games. FFVII, utilizing 3d models over 2d graphic art, interspersed with cutscenes and 3d battles, evokes a crazy feeling that today's game completely rendered in real time could not emit. This isn't nostalgia for the feelings it evoked at the time - playing it the other night made me amazed at the color pallette, the certain darkness of the battle environments, and the way the slowed down framerate works to enhance that feeling.

I'm not saying games are worse today. IMO, Metal Gear Solid 4 is (maybe) the best game I've ever played and it could not have been achieved without Blu Ray and the Cell Processor of the PS3. I think some things are only possible with technology.

But there will always be games from other years that outshine most from recent ones. I just have a problem with someone saying that games are definitively better in every way now than they were before.

[Madame Adequate]

I can't agree on the music front. There was some gorgeous stuff back then, but there's some gorgeous stuff these days as well. What I will say though is that they did incredibly impressive things given the technical limitations of the day.

Though the contention you make in your final line is agreed with completely by me. There are good games from all years.

[Bolivar]

I can't agree on the music front. There was some gorgeous stuff back then, but there's some gorgeous stuff these days as well. What I will say though is that they did incredibly impressive things given the technical limitations of the day.

Can you think of any examples, though? I was honestly trying to think and the only game in recent memory that surpassed, instead of poorly emulated, Hollywood action movie-music is Metal Gear Solid 4, but that's not fair because Harry Gregson-Williams scored the game!

Everything else is licenses. My gf is playing Bioshock now and the music really sets the creepy atmosphere, but it's all licensed.

edit: okay, there's guys like Hitoshi Sakimoto (just noticed Valkyria Chronicles) and obviously Uematsu is still active. but that also goes back to JKTrix's analysis of the decline in Japanese importance, which leads to less risk taking, or the other way around (chicken or the egg)

[Slothy]

Oblivion had a great soundtrack that wasn't really emulating Hollywood soundtracks. It was a few years ago now, but Shadow of the Colossus had an absolutely jaw dropping soundtrack as well. I've always liked the Half-Life soundtracks too and they're something different. I'll toss in Portal, Mirror's Edge, and any Silent Hill game as well. All depends on how far back you want to go. And to be perfectly honest, as much as a lot of games may go the big Hollywood soundtrack route these days, it generally suits the titles that do it, and it's hard to do a soundtrack like that that's utterly terrible. In fact, some like Uncharted 2 are utterly amazing, and really suit the type of game.

There were easily just as many unmemorable or outright awful soundtracks back in the day though. Just because we don't have a recent equivalent to Uematsu or Mitsuda doesn't mean that all, or even most soundtracks today are generic or bad.

[Rostum]

FFVII, utilizing 3d models over 2d graphic art, interspersed with cutscenes and 3d battles, evokes a crazy feeling that today's game completely rendered in real time could not emit. This isn't nostalgia for the feelings it evoked at the time - playing it the other night made me amazed at the color pallette, the certain darkness of the battle environments, and the way the slowed down framerate works to enhance that feeling.

I definitely agree, and your point certainly holds true. But I don't really take it as games aren't as good anymore, and that they have got better (and yes there are great games from every generation).

Also about the music. There are still quite a lot of very talented composers out there that are in the game's industry. Look up Jack Wall, he did an incredible job with some of the Myst soundtracks, and recently the Mass Effect soundtracks.

[Goldenboko]

I just got done with Uncharted II: Among Thieves and Uncharted: Drake's Fortune and I'd both games had fine musical scores. I also loved Mass Effect's soundtrack, with the exception of the annoying noise they blare at you when you get a game over. (CRITICAL MISSION FAILURE :mad2:)

[Rostum]

I guess I'd like to add...


1. Originality (as Shiny mentioned). Not just the 'Milking' of Everything, but just that 'Everything Has Already Been Done'. Which may or may not be true, but it is difficult to come up with something that is entirely new and actually get it made.

It's mainly because publishers don't want to take the risk on a new IP. It's a much safer route to just go with sequels. Unfortunately it's the case.


2. Japan. It would be difficult for even Final Fantasy Forum-goers to argue that Japan hasn't lost its place as the bulk of console video gaming market share. Not talking about quality at this point, but just the percentage of visible games. The bulk of the games we grew up loving were Japanese, and now they are being forced down by big budget, mass market games. Japan is where we would expect to see things that are original, but the ones that really get the most attention here are the ones that play it safe.

Japan is definitely strong in the industry. The western side just can't tap into it.

[Madame Adequate]

I can't agree on the music front. There was some gorgeous stuff back then, but there's some gorgeous stuff these days as well. What I will say though is that they did incredibly impressive things given the technical limitations of the day.

Can you think of any examples, though? I was honestly trying to think and the only game in recent memory that surpassed, instead of poorly emulated, Hollywood action movie-music is Metal Gear Solid 4, but that's not fair because Harry Gregson-Williams scored the game!

Everything else is licenses. My gf is playing Bioshock now and the music really sets the creepy atmosphere, but it's all licensed.

edit: okay, there's guys like Hitoshi Sakimoto (just noticed Valkyria Chronicles) and obviously Uematsu is still active. but that also goes back to JKTrix's analysis of the decline in Japanese importance, which leads to less risk taking, or the other way around (chicken or the egg)

Well, it's subjective. You say "poorly emulated" whereas I think some games which go for Hollywood style music do it damned well; Mass Effect was at least in part tribute to '80s sci-fi, which you will realize the second you listen to the main menu music. But it's really really good music despite, perhaps even because of, that.

Some other examples have already been mentioned so I won't go into them really.

[eestlinc]

we have better technology now, so it is possible to do more. but the history of everything is a story of people transcending their technological limits. few creations remain great once they are taken out of their technological context. Those that do become classics. I would guess the rate at which classics are made remains roughly constant over generations.

it is also worth considering, in the specific context of video games, that the audience used to be almost solely children and teenagers. You can pump out a lot of mediocre crap and still get 8 year olds to beg their parents for it. Now the market for video games is so much wider, so producers can't get away with as much.

[Rase]

Every generation has it's crap, and plenty of old games both stand the test of time and get surpassed. For me Mario Kart and Mario Kart 64 are not nearly as good as Mario Kart Double Dash!!, but Super Mario World is much better than (single player) New Super Mario Bros. Wii. I think FFIV is still possibly the best Final Fantasy, yet find Mass Effect 2 and Fallout 3 better than most RPG's I've played (granted, my experience in CRPG's is limited at best). Overall I would put this generation up there as one of the bests though.


But that can't be the only explanation, and reading these two articles I've found the other. Stephen Totilo, Michael McWhertor, and whoever else at Kotaku have a very valid and real reason for honestly believing in their hearts that Modern Warfare 2 is a top class game:

They simply didn't play any good games back in the day. And they, and many of these other clowns on top gaming sites shouldn't be game journalists for it.
Or they genuinely think that. Oh wait, no human being could do that, I forgot.

Also, most everyone people would consider a "game journalist" are "enthusiast press". Regardless, a lack of experience with the past of a medium =/= an inability to effectively talk about the current state of said medium, at least IMHO.