It's me or are newer games shittier than what we had in the 90's?

It's me or are newer games shittier than what we had in the 90's?

You're not wrong- with mainstream western releases at least.
AAA overall is a shit, and there are some decent indies.

The past wasn't hit after hit- but I'd argue the best of the past is better than the best we have now. Though I still think when you find a game that IS good nowadays that it should be talked about more- here definitely.

And the games made in the 90's were shitter than the ones in the 80's. Game designers are getting dumber and dumber with every generation.

western releases weren't really much better in the 90s either. There were a handful of really notable titles like thief and the original system shock, doom and quake, but the west has commonly had a problem with cheap, soulless cash-in games being the majority of their production.

I do agree, pacman is a masterpiece.
I haven't find better AI than pacman.

everything is shittier nowadays. the 2000s were a mistake.

You're really new to this board if you really have to ask yourself that question.

What about Metal Gear Solid 3?

True, even auteur games like nier automata traded better gameplay for worse anything else compared to drakengard

What is worse is that they're trying to emulate what was made in the past but they always fuck up (see indieshit that screems "there's pixelart, neons and a smashed MIDI keyboard as a soundtrack, it's like the 80s even though I didn't grow up in the 80s").

...

Unpopular opinion here:

No games aren't shittier, it's just gaming is more mainstream now and the internet has put trash titles in the limelight. There were plenty of shit games in the '90s, more then there are now in fact. Fuck, I'd go to say that the majority of N64/PS1/Dreamcast titles were complete and utter fucking garbage.

I mean sure we've got bad games, like Gone Homo and No Man's Game, but at least they aren't what's coming out all the time. We have a lot of diversity in choice when it comes to what you'd want to play, more so than 20 years ago. Granted, the PC police definitely caused a lot of controversy, but that's a phase.

Who remembers Jon Flynt's game? Anyone? How well did Zoe Quinn's shit sell?
No one gives a shit about bad games, especially ones that shoehorn in a "moral" narrative to the story.

Sure there was always shovelware but I would argue that because less games are being made overall we're seeing less and less memorable releases which contributes to the perception of games being shittier overall.

Video games were a mistake

From what I remember hearing:

The number of truly great AAA games is lower. On the plus side, bad games aren't nearly as bad as they used to be,

motherfucker, there are far more releases nowadays than before. Steam has a new game almost every fucking day, the consoles have a new game releasing every week and handhelds get treated with a good dose of something special every so often. There are PLENTY more games than in the '90s.

Take off your 2002 nostalgia glasses, the '90s were shit overall aside from a few key-defining aspects.

Graphics were always a huge selling point though. Lots of Playstation games sold on the quality of their FMVs. If anything, we've gotten less shallow regarding graphics. Minecraft is one of the most popular games in the world, and Nintendo can get by flogging generation old tech in a way that would have got them slaughtered back in the 90's.

He does have a point though. There was only so much you could push those polygons, and the console lifespan was was far and away longer than we have now.

That cap on graphics led to more time spent in other, more important areas.

How much longer does it take to model a top of the line character model today, compared to in the 90's? Is it that big of a difference? I imagine the tools have gotten a lot more sophisticated along with the tech, allowing for shortcuts.

You're insane if you think that professional spriting takes less time than modeling, skinmapping, and skinning.

Bigger releases were actually good before even if they didn't sell well.
The only influencial shit today is Dark Souls which had been done before, Ubisoft Open World games which are the basis for every Open world game today and Call of Dutys/Borderlands unlock/perk system thats mimicked in every fucking mainstream release.

It's just you, you stupid frog shit.

The main thing that's changed for the worse is the AAA market, back then you could pretty much depend on any game coming out of Square, Capcom, Konami, Nintendo, Sega etc being a good game. Now most of that is just shit you have to dig through to find the actual good games coming out of smaller companies.

In a way yes, which is entirely to be expected with development teams being at least 10 times as big as they were in the 90's. Because of that a clear vision for games has become impossible to communicate so now people in suits have taken over that task but since these people are trained at how to make a game sell well instead of knowing how to make a game that's good it has lead to the stagnation of the market we see today.

Catalog

Nigga what? Consoles generations changed every five years or so. Starting in 05 with gen 7 they tried stretching it out to 10 years and in turn screwed everything up, which is why we have console generations being elongated with incremental redesigned hardware that's basically a gimped PC.

Reminder that "corporate suits" were always part of the industry.

But they had less control when there wasn't so much money at stake. That's why mid-level studios a best.

Lots of Playstation games sold on the quality of their FMVs.
Until those companies started putting those images of FMV's on the back of the box and making consumers think they were the actual game graphics (and then stopped when they got in trouble for false advertising).

Possible the most "outsider" game with such massive high sales despite it's appearance. Came from the indie scene from one guy, has poor graphics, alpha discount release (though not the first), constant updates and community feedback. If this had been from a major publisher, the opposite probably would have happened.

I'd just be happy if games released whole and complete without major sections chopped out for dlc, not needing months of patches just to make them playable, and to not nag you all the time to spend even more shekels in their cash-shop.

I can deal with shitty games. But 3/4 of a shitty game that's broken and still tries to sell you booster packs?

How the fuck did it get this bad? There are people out there who will defend this shit, and then take it a step further to buy literal alpha builds at full retail price.

Definitely

There were a few golden games, but a lot of shit, the ratio is about the same today. 1000 bad games to every good game.
Sorry consolefags

You're all just being hipster faggots, the new generation can't be that bad.

...

Don't be so sure.

le wrong generation reddit meme

Short answer, no; there's lots of shitty games from decades ago that nobody remembers, like Kane and Lynch 2. Long answer: yes, because there's less overall testing and polishing before release, since companies nowadays can just fix things in patches, to say nothing of early access games which are unpolished by nature. There is, of course, a third option, and that's you're an old man who remembers how good things were in your time while conveniently forgetting how bad things were; that being said, i like early 90s anime RPGs like Star Ocean 2 and Grandia, and those sure as fuck aren't getting made anymore.

To summarize, Holla Forums was never good.

7th Gen was the only long gen
Every other console lifespan was around 5 years.


Hello cuckchan

siege is unfortunately good though

(checked)

I like how hes pretending like the hobby didn't enjoy a Golden age of Home media for 3 decades much like what happened with Arcade a few years back before the 2600 was released.

At this point, does anyone really need to?

Somebody post the AAA dev cycle flowchart.

-Hype
-Release
-Mixed reception
-People swear off the next title
Is it like this?

it might be more like

everything is shit, except pee

Well, A, didn't think i really needed to, since it's well known for being bad, and B, to be honest i haven't played it or any other atari games so i certainly don't have any contemporary reference point for why it was worse than any other atari blob games. I could have mentioned Superman 64 or Quest 64, but i heard those were shit and never bothered to play them, same for Kane and Lynch. I could bring up shit like Space Station Silicon Valley, Boogerman, Magna Carta, or any fucking SaGa game, but most people don't think they were unilaterally bad and i almost guarantee you there'll be one motherfucker crawling out of the woodwork to praise them.

Wrong, faggot, it's because at the time the video game scene was oversaturated with shitty clones. When E.T. was announced, it got tons of hype, so retailers bought more than 5 times the amount for the Christmas sales. The dev expected the game to sell more than 5 million, but after the release, it didn't even sell a quarter of that.
That, and at the game was bad, too.

I read stuff about that E.T. wasn't even that bad by the standards of it's day (I have faint memory of somebody basically applying "git gud" to it in regards to positioning yourself near pits) but the poor quality of game was amplified by a magnitude due to massive advertisement campaign about game based on the the highest grossing film at the time.

In case everybody didn't already know, US video game industry crashed shortly after E.T. was released. However E.T. was just final symptom. Over saturation was killing the market and E.T. helped people see it.

buuuuuut iiiiiffff it was a polished game that everyone loved and wanted, it would have gotten bought up and hailed as modern art for the time rather than the cash-in tripe that it was. However, it was shit, and presumably more shit than other atari games not that i have experience with the console, so it all went to hell.

I mean, hey, if a game is hyped AND good, then it all works out ok.

For your consideration, best selling vidya of the 90s compared to the best selling vidya of the last decade.
Don't try and act like the 90s wasn't a great decade for vidya

Crash of the industry was most likely inevitable. It wouldn't simply have had that big final nail in it's coffin.

If the game had been even decent it would've probably been just forgotten by now. I mentioned that the game wasn't that bad but it didn't do good job at explaining how to play according to what I read. Marketing the game towards younger children probably resulted in several gallons worth of tears of disappointment.

Atari bet too much on the game becoming success. The game would have had trouble selling all the 5 million copies even if everybody agreed it was a 10/10 game. In that unlikely alternate world, Atari could be a company similar to Nintendo today. Heck, maybe they'd effectively replace the Nintendo altogether if they'd had managed to maintain the US console market.


Friendly hint for people like me who started wondering why it hasn't been listed by the "No." it is listed by the Release date which is more relevant in this discussion

Nowadays we have longer, yet much easier games you play once and never touch again.

Before, we had shorter games (bewteen half an hour and an hour) which were harder to beat, meaning that you needed several weeks to finish them for the first time, but even when you finished them, you still wanted to play again.

There's indeed a general change of philosophy in AAA games. It's not just a "nostalgic issue".

...

Circlejerking about how shit modern games are is a very popular activity

Did you not have these threads on 4chan? If not, you should go back and have this pointless discussion there.

Stop posting like a cuckchanner you colossal fucking faggot.

It might just be a combo of games really arent all that new and there are less companies that want to take chances at something different, and that fact that at this point you have probably seen it all before.

Going strictly by the consoles the PS1 has over 7000 games world wide (wikipedia only lists 2000 of them), the PS2 has about 1800 games, and the PS3 roughly 800 games. There is clearly a drop in AAA title releases. All those steam games are basically indie shovelware.

Where do you think you are? Half the threads here are about how games suck. It's visibly not just you.

is it me or do we have like 5 of these threads

Huh. When you put it that way ET and No Man's Sky are basically the same thing; middling cancers on a dying beast that were so obvious even the layman could see something was wrong.

Except this fucking industry will never crash a second time, not like it did at least.

Every game I bought in the 90's was enjoyed multiple times over. That's been a rare occurrence since.

We've had this thread enough times to hammer out a definitive answer, which is as follows:
Sage because we have no need for these threads unless all of the above change.

...

speaking of cuckchan