The Decline of Video Games

[Dirge Inferno]

Don't know about anyone else here, but I feel that video games have taken a sharp decline in quality due to consoles. They've been simplified for simple people; filled with hints, scripted scenes, linear & easy gameplay, plain map designs and less puzzles. Legend of Grimrock is the best game I've seen around in years. You'd probably disagree with me though...

Just thought I'd add this image while I'm here ^.

[PSY]

LOL

Your pic made me laugh

Nice one ^^


PSY

[seebs]

Don't know about anyone else here, but I feel that video games have taken a sharp decline in quality due to consoles.

Many people feel this.

It is absolutely, totally, and completely false. Welcome to nostalgia and being more used to games than you used to be.

Couple things to keep in mind:
1. Consoles predate every game you like. Seriously. I played stuff on the Atari 2600.
2. Many early games were punishingly hard, but then, many were trivially easy. There's always been a very broad difficulty curve.
3. Some "simplification" is really a matter of getting rid of distractions from the game experience.
4. A huge part of this is just people being more used to games.

Go look at the development of plot and writing through the last hundred years or so of TV and movies. People will often say that modern movies are dumbed down, but if you actually watch many of the classics, they are much simpler than we expect movies to be now. Because we've learned a lot about how to tell and show stories since then...

The thing where people identify as "PC gamers" and look down on "console gamers" is in and of itself a very bad thing for the gaming industry, and you shouldn't fall for the marketing bunk.

Trivia point: When I played Dungeon Master II, I played it on a Sega CD because that was the first version I could get my grubby little paws on.

[eharper256]

Mm, its like saying movies took a sharp decline in quality because of VHS making them more portable.

The problem is not the consoles, but rather the 'take no risks' business-model the corporate side of gaming industry has adopted. Because people will always buy X if it has Y, that sort of thing is developed. And over time, developers have merely distilled the formula down to its purest (and frankly, awful) form. But it won't stop, because people will still buy it and money talks.

You just have to roll your eyes at it and carry on, and find the few willing to take risks. It is happening, if you look. Nintendo suddenly realised they couldn't fight a hardware war with Sony and Microsoft, so they made the Wii and did something different. Indie developers have sprung up left, right and centre who are more willing (in some cases) to take silly risks than the big corps, sometimes gaining great boons (like Minecraft and Grimrock).

If anything, I think there's a double curve. One is rock-bottom right now with the utter brainlessness of DLC on the disc, DRM via online servers, utter freedom restriction, and terrible game design- the line controlled by the money. But there's another that has been rising upwards since about 2008- a creativity based line that was once snuffed out; due to the death of the bedroom programmer that started the entire games scene. It died in the late 90's, but has since been ressurected.

Eventually, the two might even split and we'll have two game industries. That'll be interesting.

[Dirge Inferno]

Don't know about anyone else here, but I feel that video games have taken a sharp decline in quality due to consoles.

Many people feel this.

It is absolutely, totally, and completely false. Welcome to nostalgia and being more used to games than you used to be.

Couple things to keep in mind:
1. Consoles predate every game you like. Seriously. I played stuff on the Atari 2600.
2. Many early games were punishingly hard, but then, many were trivially easy. There's always been a very broad difficulty curve.
3. Some "simplification" is really a matter of getting rid of distractions from the game experience.
4. A huge part of this is just people being more used to games.

Go look at the development of plot and writing through the last hundred years or so of TV and movies. People will often say that modern movies are dumbed down, but if you actually watch many of the classics, they are much simpler than we expect movies to be now. Because we've learned a lot about how to tell and show stories since then...

The thing where people identify as "PC gamers" and look down on "console gamers" is in and of itself a very bad thing for the gaming industry, and you shouldn't fall for the marketing bunk.

Trivia point: When I played Dungeon Master II, I played it on a Sega CD because that was the first version I could get my grubby little paws on.

Games these days are too friendly and simple. Basically the game does all the dirty work for you and you get an easy ride, there's also way too many scripted scenes and such. Then there's that DLC shit, which is completely un-needed and ridiculous. Are games even done for passion anymore or just money?

[Daght]

I see a GREAT decline in The Elder Scroll series. Untill Oblivion that was THE BEST rpg, with Skyrim the say it's an rpg but I can't trust'em... i played it obtaining all 50 achievs on steam but the storyline and the design is too simple if compared with the others chapters.

[Crashbanito]

Another thing to keep in mind is that many old game padded to increase their length. A complex level is just a waste of time if it's just,well, a waste of your time.

Many people call out Final Fantasy for being one linear, cut-scene filled mess. This is the correct thing to do and you should all continue to do it, but realize that there are much better games than Final Fantasy that don't do that crap.

[seebs]

Games these days are too friendly and simple. Basically the game does all the dirty work for you and you get an easy ride, there's also way too many scripted scenes and such.

Well, thing is. If I wanted to do dirty work, I wouldn't be playing games. I'd be working as a sysadmin or something. I play games because I want to focus on the game, not on the buggy interface.

You will be a lot happier if you distinguish between inherent and accidental difficulties. To put it another way: Imagine that we take a game you like, and add a thing where every minute there's a 50% chance you randomly die. Is that more fun? More challenging? No, it's not. How about a game where you have WASD movement, but you can only use WASD movement if you hold the keypad + key down at the same time, and you can only use the mouse until you click, and then you have to stop moving the mouse and hit the insert key and then you can use the mouse again. More fun? No?

Making games friendly is in no way a bad thing. It is a great thing. Key is, you have to play games because you enjoy playing games; if you play them because you think it makes you better than other people, you're gonna be disappointed.

Then there's that DLC shit, which is completely un-needed and ridiculous. Are games even done for passion anymore or just money?

Most game developers (not counting stuff like Zynga) are in it for passion, but they can't eat passion, so they do stuff to make money. But I'm not sure I see the complaint with DLC; I mean, it's more stuff. I am pretty happy with the idea of getting more stuff.

Just look at LoG for an example. For $15, I got a game comparable in scope and depth to Dungeon Master, which I paid $40 for in dollars that were worth a lot more. I am not seeing a basis for complaint here.