Gaming fell off a long time ago. Did you realize?
- Thread starter Deleted member 42501
- Start date
- Views 4,081
- Replies 44
- Likes 1
I think it all started with:
- Microsoft focusing on Xbox , wasting billions
-Computer hardware becoming cheaper because of outsourcing to Asia, meaning less lucrative . Eg look at the successful Sierra business model of the 80s, targeting the affluent computer owners instead of the ones with C64.
One reason even the Amstrad cheap ibm clone was snubbed by the press back then for prestige reasons. Now cheap computers are the norm, leaving to prestige to Apple.
-Dominance of Nvidia and AMD in the gpu market, meaning monopoly and less innovation.
-Microsoft doing the same on Windows, after winning the OS wars of the 90s. In fact it took few years to become stable. Other systems OS were ahead of Windows years ago.
- Windows XP resetting the pc gaming landscape (no proper BC compatibility without resorting to incomplete solutions for years). This broke the connection between younger and olde users and many moved to consoles because advertising on computer gaming was reduced at that time.
-Computer games becoming streamlined and consolised, attracting new users in the short term, like in 2010s, but not good for the long term, as the innovative computer games of the 80s and 90s had a different sales model with less numbers. Influential fps games sold just the fraction of N64 Golden Eye for example.
-In general it is a totally different landscape. In many games the online social aspect outweighs the gameplay aspect
-After the arcades, which at least did not require credit cards and offered quality graphics and gameplay, companies return to gambling via mobile phone games.
To me the most important part is that back then video games were not cut from social entertainment in general, which was mostly an adult thing, dating back centuries. You had things like arcades,gambling, billiards, darts, cards, social gatherings etc, together with smoking, alcohol and other...stuff. It was not strictly a sanitised environment, glued to a monitor, no matter the variety it offers. It was far more exciting , though also more risky.
- Microsoft focusing on Xbox , wasting billions
-Computer hardware becoming cheaper because of outsourcing to Asia, meaning less lucrative . Eg look at the successful Sierra business model of the 80s, targeting the affluent computer owners instead of the ones with C64.
One reason even the Amstrad cheap ibm clone was snubbed by the press back then for prestige reasons. Now cheap computers are the norm, leaving to prestige to Apple.
-Dominance of Nvidia and AMD in the gpu market, meaning monopoly and less innovation.
-Microsoft doing the same on Windows, after winning the OS wars of the 90s. In fact it took few years to become stable. Other systems OS were ahead of Windows years ago.
- Windows XP resetting the pc gaming landscape (no proper BC compatibility without resorting to incomplete solutions for years). This broke the connection between younger and olde users and many moved to consoles because advertising on computer gaming was reduced at that time.
-Computer games becoming streamlined and consolised, attracting new users in the short term, like in 2010s, but not good for the long term, as the innovative computer games of the 80s and 90s had a different sales model with less numbers. Influential fps games sold just the fraction of N64 Golden Eye for example.
-In general it is a totally different landscape. In many games the online social aspect outweighs the gameplay aspect
-After the arcades, which at least did not require credit cards and offered quality graphics and gameplay, companies return to gambling via mobile phone games.
To me the most important part is that back then video games were not cut from social entertainment in general, which was mostly an adult thing, dating back centuries. You had things like arcades,gambling, billiards, darts, cards, social gatherings etc, together with smoking, alcohol and other...stuff. It was not strictly a sanitised environment, glued to a monitor, no matter the variety it offers. It was far more exciting , though also more risky.
This is pretty much it really. The wild west days of gaming were quite lawless in that respect as it wasn't mainstream yet. That combined with the modern snowflake sensibilities, everyones a winner (even if they're really losers) and rest of the crappy lines devs feel they must colour within have drained a lot of fun out of gaming.
In many ways its became formulaic, play one you've played them all as there is little in the way of innovation. Of course most gamers won't acknowledge this, much like the naked emperor, as they desperately need distraction from their otherwise unfulfilling lives and for them games provide a release.
For me, gaming fell off during the PS3/360 era, when game consoles started becoming compact computer systems for gaming+media consumption. (Blu-ray, Netflix, YouTube, etc...) It's also the era of too much bloom and "brown" games, when they had no business trying for realism at that point in time. Sure, Nintendo wasn't perfect either, but at least they're putting games and gameplay first. (HDMI really should have been added to the Wii, and it still chaps my ass to this day that it wasn't a 720p native console, minimum...)
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 834
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 43
- Location
- Perth,Australia
- Website
- Visit site
- XP
- 1,240
- Country
i miss the days where games where complete without the added DLC....like final fantasy 7 remake.....only a 1/4 of the game has been released :/
Yes, I still buy a lot of games, but rarely really get into many of them. I had assumed it was just an unavoidable fact of growing up getting old and not having as much time, but I noticed that I can still get sucked into old games and it doesn't seem to be purely nostalgia as it happens with some I've never played as well.
same for me. I used to love rpgs a lot, but now they just seem to be slow. I guess it's from getting older. I do have a lot of free time, but I usually devote that to learning and testing things. I do like doing that with exploits and whatnot on game systems, but I don't really play many games anymore. I still have barely an hour in arise, and I've had the game since October. got decimated by the wyvern boss on top of the mountains in lost odyssey. I gained one level, and it was boring as hell, grinding that is.
For a game with a 33 hour long main story I'd say the game is already at an ideal length. There are side-quests available for those who like the game enough to keep on playing. Longer isn't necessarily better.
Source: https://howlongtobeat.com/game?id=57686
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 834
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 43
- Location
- Perth,Australia
- Website
- Visit site
- XP
- 1,240
- Country
Its not just games. You can tell a lot of people are stretching the product for that reup/comeback sale/sequel/ultimate edition.
A lot of books written by professionals in various fields are dressed up brochures to advertise an upsell as opposed to workable methodologies or insights as they used to be. Movies, TV shows etc.. its very common now to see what little creativity there is spread very thin in order to milk the IP for all its worth.
People accept it because they are so desperate to be entertained and have little sense of discernment or quality.
Back with gaming, the underlying mechanics are so boring these days and fun is almost non existent. Pretty much every game is similar to something else. Granted this happens when the field went from underground to mainstream as everything got pimped but aside from Indy there is very few who innovate and bring something fresh to the table.
A lot of books written by professionals in various fields are dressed up brochures to advertise an upsell as opposed to workable methodologies or insights as they used to be. Movies, TV shows etc.. its very common now to see what little creativity there is spread very thin in order to milk the IP for all its worth.
People accept it because they are so desperate to be entertained and have little sense of discernment or quality.
Back with gaming, the underlying mechanics are so boring these days and fun is almost non existent. Pretty much every game is similar to something else. Granted this happens when the field went from underground to mainstream as everything got pimped but aside from Indy there is very few who innovate and bring something fresh to the table.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2021
- Messages
- 3,911
- Trophies
- 2
- Age
- 66
- Location
- On the Patio NaKeD w/COFFEE
- XP
- 13,086
- Country
Almost every AAA title selling point: "Yes, it will have a single-player story, and you can definitely (we promise) get the full experience without microtransactions."
Almost every indie game selling point: "Open world crafting souls-like with roguelike elements. You will die, a lot."
Me, realizing that 30-year old SNES RPGs have over 20 more hours of content than the $40 "retro" RPGs of today:
Almost every indie game selling point: "Open world crafting souls-like with roguelike elements. You will die, a lot."
Me, realizing that 30-year old SNES RPGs have over 20 more hours of content than the $40 "retro" RPGs of today:
It's really unfortunate. Like, I know the varus definitely impacted gaming this year, but even before there was little variety. I was looking for a new game a few days ago, a third person turn based rpg (like Dragon Age: Origins or KOTOR) and that genre is DEAD. AAA picked up the story parts, and the rest went to traditional rpgs (which i like, but they get tiring).
So now there's like, a huge divide. I can play cyberpunk, or I can play pathfinder, with nothing in-between.
So now there's like, a huge divide. I can play cyberpunk, or I can play pathfinder, with nothing in-between.
No, because it really hasn't. If you're looking at big companies and IPs, of course things look the same. They make money from knowing what people like and giving them more of that. It's the kind of thing when people say "all first-person shooters are the same," when they just remember a couple military shooters. Which don't represent everything. Halo didn't/doesn't play like COD. COD doesn't play like Superhot. Things were indeed weirder back then, because foundations weren't settled. But now people know the basics of how an FPS should control, of course they have some similarities but you can spot differences if you look hard enough.
If you want the spirit of experimentation and games, look towards indie games or something. They aren't tied to a big name or company and wear their heart on their sleeve. Or RPGs, plenty of them (action or turn based) aren't ever 1:1.
Gaming is big and it does no one any favors to make massive generalizations like this. "Every AAA is like This and every indie game is like This" No they're not. Well the latter isn't. There are as many concepts as there are people and you certainly haven't met everyone. Even with the same genres or inspirations, people can differ greatly. It sounds like a you problem, not a gaming problem.
"Pretty much every game is similar to something else." You can say this about literally any medium. This isn't a problem, that's how people are.
There's nothing wrong with people just wanting entertainment, that's what games are. Some people like junk food no differently, but you can find yourself the tastiest, healthiest stuff to please yourself just fine.
The Wii U might've stood out but the question is did it help anything? Few games used it well and it was inevitable for it to be abandoned, so now it stands as an awkward bump. That gimmick leads to awkward or impossible ports forward. Same with the DS and 3DS. It's charming sure but it's not sustaining.
That being said, there is an awful trend of open world games that I don't like. Not every gameplay loop can make it worth running around hitting every wall. Or running into a 20+ level enemy when I'm at level 3.
If you want the spirit of experimentation and games, look towards indie games or something. They aren't tied to a big name or company and wear their heart on their sleeve. Or RPGs, plenty of them (action or turn based) aren't ever 1:1.
Gaming is big and it does no one any favors to make massive generalizations like this. "Every AAA is like This and every indie game is like This" No they're not. Well the latter isn't. There are as many concepts as there are people and you certainly haven't met everyone. Even with the same genres or inspirations, people can differ greatly. It sounds like a you problem, not a gaming problem.
"Pretty much every game is similar to something else." You can say this about literally any medium. This isn't a problem, that's how people are.
There's nothing wrong with people just wanting entertainment, that's what games are. Some people like junk food no differently, but you can find yourself the tastiest, healthiest stuff to please yourself just fine.
The Wii U might've stood out but the question is did it help anything? Few games used it well and it was inevitable for it to be abandoned, so now it stands as an awkward bump. That gimmick leads to awkward or impossible ports forward. Same with the DS and 3DS. It's charming sure but it's not sustaining.
That being said, there is an awful trend of open world games that I don't like. Not every gameplay loop can make it worth running around hitting every wall. Or running into a 20+ level enemy when I'm at level 3.
Last edited by Tsukiru,
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2002
- Messages
- 1,330
- Trophies
- 3
- Age
- 45
- Location
- close to the oktoberfest
- XP
- 2,876
- Country
I don't know how we ever got through all those damn JRPGs so regularly in our youth. It takes me forever now, like months, and I usually just quit somewhere between 20-30 hours anyway.
I grew up in the 90's gaming zone, and to what I see now today. I am actually more disappointed than impressed.
The fact that is that game's back then we're more fun, at least I think it was. SNES was my first platform, and then got glued to the PSX the most throughout everything else. You would be mind boggled to know just how many games did not get release outside of Japan.
There are 100's of them.
The fact that is that game's back then we're more fun, at least I think it was. SNES was my first platform, and then got glued to the PSX the most throughout everything else. You would be mind boggled to know just how many games did not get release outside of Japan.
There are 100's of them.
OnDemand, Gaas, DLC
These three are the most notorious problems.
Them, and the "eh, we'll release it bugged, can always patch it" mentality.
Remakes of old games having *less* features than their old versions. Incomprehensible.
Ngl, maybe I won't touch a videogame system after the switch
Publishing is very expensive.
Most didn't want to take a risk
These three are the most notorious problems.
Them, and the "eh, we'll release it bugged, can always patch it" mentality.
Remakes of old games having *less* features than their old versions. Incomprehensible.
Ngl, maybe I won't touch a videogame system after the switch
It's not that mind boggling.
Publishing is very expensive.
Most didn't want to take a risk
As a pirate, video game peak all the time for me. Every game is a full game if you didn't pay for it. If I have to say where was the decline, it definitely when mobile lootbox game was invented.
Similar threads
-
- Portal
-
- Portal
-
- Poll
