Why older games are still better and why games do not depend on trends.

Discussion in 'Game Design, Development And Publishing' started by Misty, Jul 10, 2018.

  1. Misty

    Misty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    1,024
    If you are a games developer this should give you hope: You do not need to rush your game. The quality of your game does not depend on trends. Your game will be the same game, regardless of if it is released today, or 10 years from now, the quality of your game will not change based on trends. So there is no need to hurry or rush your game, due to FOMO.

    People do not seem to realize that older games are still better than newer games and that the game industry is getting worse not better. Case in point, Goldeneye.

    I recently downloaded the goldeneye emulator (YES I am legally allowed to own it because I physically purchased the Goldeneye catridge a long time ago.) So, the purpose of this discussion is discussing Goldeneye in its truest form, the emulated PC n64 version, not the original n64 version, which had lag and controller issues.

    Despite being largely unsatisfied and disinterested with most of the games available to me today, I played Goldeneye and immediately had a good time playing the game, despite it being 20 years old. Good games are timeless and do not actually depend on trends. For reference, last week I played Halo 5, and while playing the first level did not feel connected or interested in the game really.

    Here is why Goldeneye is good.
    • james bond theme, james bond is an idea, and as an idea it is inherently good. Pierce Brosnan, is an inherently fun and cool guy. Daniel Craig is more of a soldier type, and does not fit the theme of james bond. james bond is basically a spy type, a casual guy who has pent up rage causing him to kill others in cheap ways, he does not play fair, he cheats, he is not a real gentleman, nor is he a real soldier, he is basically the same as Snake from MGS, but with less morals and more trollish.
    • Nice logo screen that fits the theme and gives you technical sounding information about the game, rather than meaningless intro logos.
    • 2 meaningless intro logos, however they look cool and 3d and to be made of gold and silver.
    • A cheesey anime-ish 3d character introduction sequence that does not take itself seriously.
    • A very cool menu that looks like a folder of M16, getting you into the atmosphere immediately at the get go. the menu is easy to understand, gets you right into the game, and does not frustrate you.
    • The game starts immediately, not stopping the pacing by forcing boring mandatory tutorials on the player.
    • The game has a long black screen with cool music, making you feel suspense and anticipation: Did the game freeze? Is the game loading? What is going on, and what is going to come next?
    • The game begins with a smooth 3d camera pan that really gets you into the game.
    • The style of the graphics are similar to flash animations. The graphics are the equivalent of Behemoth's games if they were made to be 3D: crisp, efficient and sufficiently representational. This is also one of the reasons Equestria Girls is popular.
    • The controls are awkward to begin with, forcing you to load the cool watch-screen pause menu.
    • The watch screen pause menu looks cool like flash animations, mixed with 3D and changes the music of the game to cool music. They put a lot of work into the menu to make it 3D and smoothly pause the game rather than the typical cheesy indie menus that just immediately pause the game.
    • The game begins with you mildly unsure of your ability to properly use a firearm, similar to a real life combat scenario.
    • The gunplay is more realistic than most modern FPS games. For starters, when you shoot an enemy, the weaker, non-elite, enemies pause, and clutch to the locational damage of the shot, like a real life gunfight. Contrast this to most FPS games nowadays, where you shoot an enemy and they continue spraying at you like the Terminator on steroids.
    • Second, the aiming is more realistic than most modern FPS games. In the original goldeneye, there is auto-aim, but it has a narrow range. The gun aiming seems similar to how a novice would perform in their first real gun fight, or how they would fare in their first time at the range. When you first start to play, the majority of your shots go whizzing by the enemy, at even close range. Contrast this to modern FPS games, which you just quickscope everything and generally hit your targets at all times.
    • The enemies accuracy is about the same as yours. At the beginning levels, their accuracy is about as bad as yours. At later levels, when your accuracy starts to improve, so does theres, creating a balance.
    • There are just the right amount of enemies. It is not like COD where you are swarmed by dozens of enemies constantly. But it is not sparse like an indie game with too few enemies. And each enemy provides a challenge and doesn't just feel like an NPC, but an actual foe that you have to take care of.
    • Despite the AI being bad at times, the game does not feel unrealistic and each gunfight feels unique and special. Sometimes enemies can also surprise you and there is much depth to the gameplay. Contrast this to modern FPS, where enemies just are scattered around everywhere randomly and you just gun them all down repetitively.
    • The damage system is just right. The game punishes you for making mistakes and getting jumped. Bullets feel like they have weight and being shot at feels like real life, as though you are actually being assaulted. There is an intense need to run for cover or dodge enemy bullets. When you are out in the open you feel screwed and hope that the enemy misses his clip. Contrast this to modern games, which have a regenerating health bar, and enemies that are extremely accurate at all times. In modern game there is no suspense or sense of danger, it just seems like to wait patiently, kill enemies, then go back to hiding and wait for your health to recharge.
    • There are objectives and no clear waypoints. You have to use critical thinking and guess mysteries in order to beat a level. And there are difficulty options for easier players who just want to shoot and dont want to think.
    • The music has a melody and theme to it, rather than just being blaring background noise.
    • The animations seem like real life and the camera seems like real life, rather than being a robotic kind of rigid camera.

    In essence a game is good not because of what year it was released in, but because the quality of work that was put into the game.

    Here is why the new goldeneye is not good:

    • The menu is modernized, taking you out of the cool atmosphere Goldeneye 64 had.
    • The music is generic background noise that you have heard 1000 times before.
    • Daniel Craig is bond, and he does not fit the atmosphere.
    • The gunplay and aiming of the original is all gone, replaced by bad Wiimote aiming.
    • The graphics are modern looking and overload your mind with too much sensory information.
    • There are too many shadows making it very hard to locate enemies.
    • The combat is watered down and modernized into COD style combat.
    • The cutscenes are too serious and not fun-spirited.
    • During the first level you do not seem in charge of your own destiny, rather you seem to be the wingman of 006. This might have been fine for a third level but not good for a player just getting a hold of the game.
    Furthermore I would like to say that modern graphics are bad.
    When I am happy and in a higher-frame of mind, I fantasize about old classic 3D graphics of the 90's and 2000's. Then I say, why not think about newer graphics? When I think of newer graphics it ruins my buzz and hurts my mind. Like something is not right about newer graphics, it feels like sensory overload.

    Newer games do not seem like art anymore. There was a certain artistic spirit to the older games. A certain artistic power. It was almost like the low-polygons were an artstyle of its own. And now the newer games just feel like proc-gen worlds just slapped together.

    Okay here is what I mean for example. It is more than just the videogame world, here is an example. Say you have a very good days and good times in a beautiful park or street or camping grounds. Those places are special and you hold them in high regards of good times. This is positive energy and goodness. But then you go to the low-end place of the city. And the low-end place of the city is bad times and does not feel good.

    This is an example of the older games, vs. newer games. The older games, even though they are polygonal, are nice architecture and beautiful and good times. The newer games, are like being in a low end place of the city, no matter how HD the graphics get, the artist is not good, and it does not feel good.

    Modern game designers feel also borderline juvenile, and make graphics that look like this often:
    [​IMG]

    These graphic styles look borderline juvenile and something more suited for a 3 year old at a preschool, but it seems this is a popular artistic style nowadays.



    Do not even get me started on Perfect Dark Zero.
    Perfect Dark was the same as goldeneye, but better graphics and a more wild story. It was more interactive and had better multiplayer modes too.

    But Perfect Dark Zero was wrong in every way:
    • The menus were a downgrade, instead of an interactive 3D Carrington menu you get a 2D menu.
    • The game immediately starts off taking you out of the original Perfect Dark atmosphere, and tries to be a watered down Bond game.
    • The music is good, but that is about all that is good about this game.
    • The intro movie is bad cinematography and has no context. Remember the first Perfect Dark game? It gave you a wide pan of the city and a clue as to why you were doing what you were doing. This just starts out in the enemy base and no context as to why you are there.
    • The game starts out with a series of annoying in-game tutorials.
    • When you follow the tutorials you get shot with a bunch of turrets anyway and almost die at the beginning of the game. Remember the original? They did not put in dangerous turrets until the second level.
    • The first enemies you kill are small robots as opposed to actual humans in the original game.
    • When you do finally kill humans they are unsuspecting and no threat whatsoever.
    • The small robots turn out to be more dangerous than humans and it is very hard to beat the first level.
    • The aiming is rigid and robotic and not smooth and realistic like the original game.
    • The voice acting seems like a Disney Cartoon of TV tropes
    • Presumably there are no humans in the first level because they didn't want to showcase the boring human AI and bad human vs. human combat at the beginning of the game.
    • The game looks indie in presentation, with over the top specular and bumpmapping put everwhere to mask the bad level design.
    • The gameplay is absolute and complete chaos.
    • The gameplay is slow and linear.
    • The multiplayer combat is terrible and takes on average 3 clips to get an enemy unless you aim for headshots, but the aiming is hard and bad to begin with.
    • The running is slow and everyone runs like a mentally challenged person jogging.
    • The death animations seem like they were made for comic relief more so than anything else.
    • The singleplayer AI of the enemies is worse than the first game which was made in 2000.

    Some people say if they could time travel, they would go back in time and stop Hitler, to save society.
    I say if I could time travel, I would go back in time and stop them from making Perfect Dark Zero.

    It seems that ever since that game, society has been steadily going downhill.

    For example here are two games showing this phenomenon:
    Space Balls (2018) vs. Marble Blast Ultra (2006)
    Games seem to be getting worse not better.


     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  2. Rob

    Rob Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Posts:
    680
    I don't know if I entirely agree with you that older games are better.

    There are a ton of new games that suck, for sure, but if I go back and play games that I did from the 80s and 90s I can't say that they are "better" than my favourite newer games.

    I like to replay old games because of the good memories they bring and I fantasize about making modern versions of them but if these games were brought out today, being the exact same games with all the same problems, they would not be among today's top games.

    I always point to the "Morrowind is better" argument that some people have. I played the Elder Scroll series since Daggerfall and I've loved every iteration of the game. I even bought and played Reguard and Battlespire, but are they better games than Skyrim? I really don't believe so. It's true that Skyrim has less skills, no stats apart from Health/Mana/Stamina, and no classes - which leads people to say it's dumbed down, but they got rid of a huge problem that I had with previous games and now I can actually enjoy the game from level one, not power-level for 20-30 levels just to feel like I've made a decent character.

    Hopefully I explained my point of view and didn't derail the thread.

    [EDIT] I do agree that a successful game doesn't depend on trends. Being able to create a game that's fun, draws people in and makes them want to share it is an unattainable skill for me, but if you can do it then the current "trend" won't matter. It's always the first game of a genre that sticks in people's minds (but subsequent games may be "better" due to experience and polish).
     
    Toque and Khao like this.
  3. Khao

    Khao Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    150
    I grew up playing the original Goldeneye but being completely honest, while it's still enjoyable, playing it again today just feels extremely dated in every way possible. From the way it plays, to the way it looks, to the way it sounds, to the way it's designed. Sorry, but this just seems like a massive case of rose-tinted nostalgia glasses to me. Some of your "good" points are highly subjective and sometimes outright fabricated. "The game begins with you mildly unsure of your ability to properly use a firearm"? What does that even mean? Is it because you don't know how to play the game yet? Just like the beginning of every game ever created?

    Compare Goldeneye to its remake, and sure, there's a lot to like about the original that the remake just didn't capture. But to use it as an argument to criticize modern gaming as a whole is just plain laughable. And if you simply look at new games and completely focus on what's missing from your favorite game you played as a child while ignoring any positive qualities, of course you'll never find anything you'll enjoy.
     
  4. Misty

    Misty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    1,024
    Sure the original goldeneye isn't perfect, but its still just fun to play.

    here's the difference. You play goldeneye 64 20 years later you still have a good time.
    you play goldeneye Wii the first time you dont have a good time. You play goldeneye wii 20 years later you still dont have a good time.

    Now goldeneye 64 did have some flaws, mainly the AI was stupid at times. But it followed all the rules of good game design.

    (Now the other thing is I said you aren't allowed to review goldeneye64 on N64. I said the only way to play it is on PC, because the n64 is dated and has framerate and low resolution issues. So if your critique is based of the n64 version its invalid.)


    I haven't played Halo 1 in a while, but I daresay Halo 1 is probably more fun than Halo 5, I played Halo 5 and it just felt like a chore to play.

    I think part of the thing is, we are expecting newer games to be even greater than the old ones. Like a logical progression. But instead the newer games seem to be worse.

    Like goldeneye had flaws in AI, but was fun to play. So we expected a new goldeneye, which was even more fun to play, and had less flaws in AI, but instead we got Nightfire, which had the same bad AI as before, as well as worse animations than before. And then we got Goldeneye Wii which was even worse than Nightfire, at least Nightfire had an interesting story and artistic level design.

    Now lets talk about DOOM. Doom1 and Doom2 were good. Doom3 was an abomination.
    Doom4 what it is I don't know. It's like if a bunch of boys got in a room and drank straight testosterone. All the levels just look like either red and orange, yellow and brown, or blue and gray. It kind of lost the artistic charm of the original. And the gameplay lost the run-and-gun ness of the original, because now you can melee, which completely messes up the flow of the game. And the shotgun barely holds any ammo now. The music is just total rage with no discernible essence to it anymore. I bs you not whilst I was playing the DOOM4 demo I was pondering suicide. I looked at the bottom of the mars cliff and wanted to freely fall down. Like the idea of me falling to my doom, in the middle of a mars cliff, brought joy to my heart, I said this is the meaning of life. The game was not as bad as Doom3, it felt like an actual doom game, but still, I was like...is this what my future holds, is this game the culmination of my life, what is my life.

    And then you know what saved me from those suicidal thoughts? I played a game called Shining Resonance Refrain, which utterly saved my soul.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
    Bentley likes this.
  5. Smiechu

    Smiechu Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Posts:
    626
    @Misty
    Doom 2016 is one of the coolest modern games I've played lately! The music is a masterpiece, one of the best game soundtracks ever. The gameplay is simple, straightforward, with a nice balance between action and exploration. If you cach the idea of the gamplay, you never run out of ammo for shot gun, or the dubble berrel! The story is good enough to keep interested. There is a ton of secrets to find. And a small nostalgia element, when you can discover and play the classic doom levels. A great simple entertainment after a long day. The locations in hell are epic!

    Yeah, I still have the sentiment to classic Doom and Doom2, but these are completely different games. They share the same universe, the concept, plot, etc. but they cannot be compared.

    Same story is with Fallout 1, 2 vs 3, New Vegas, 4... I love all of them and I've spend quite a bit of my life playing them. Never ever even tried to compare them.

    You simply belong to the "nostalgia" peaple, there is a lot of those today and you find everything new "not good enough as the old days".

    Same thing with music, movies, books etc... stop compairing... start to enjoy!
    Or, get along with the idea that you have grown up, and games in general don't excite you any more. The only thing what excites you about the old games is the nostalgia, not the actual game experience.
     
    Rob likes this.
  6. Siolfor the Jackal

    Siolfor the Jackal Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    754
    Goldeneye is best on N64 though...
    The AI taking locational damage was the best though, it at times seemed exaggerated but it felt much more satisfying and gave much clearer feedback in gun fights.
    Perfect Dark was just a perfected version of Goldeneye. Everything was better.

    Anyway, this has nothing to do with old vs new games. Basically, good games are better than bad games. Both eras are full both.
     
    RichHopefulComposer, Bentley and Khao like this.
  7. The-any-Key

    The-any-Key Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2017
    Posts:
    1,521
    Old games are better because our brain mostly remember the good things about past times, and often the brain "screen" has a much better resolution.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2018
  8. DukeSoft

    DukeSoft Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    770
    1 Word: Gameplay.

    I mean, I know some graphics were amazing back in the days, but gameplay was still the most important. Its no longer the most important in games, IMHO. Take The Division for example. Endless grindfest, thousands of menu's / unlocks / skills / items - but the entire gameplay is just a grindfest. Same enemies, slightly different story, same gameplay, no challenge.

    Gameplay is (and still is) the most important part of a game for me.

    Thats why I like AoE, Doom (original, and the 2016 is okay), Quake 1, 2, 3, CastleCrashers, CSGO, Left4Dead2, etc. I don't care about graphics. I want smooth, challenging gameplay.
     
    RichHopefulComposer likes this.
  9. Orak

    Orak Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Posts:
    58
    When goldeneye came out, it was one of the first (THE first?) 3D FPS on console. Like many kids who had the chance to have a N64, I played countless nights the multiplayer mode with friends. And for us, it was revolutionary at this time! Graphics were awesome too(well, that is how I felt) and story mode was epic. I tried it again few months ago, and i just couldn't play it. The weird controls, stupid AI, just standing, shooting at me every 3 sec, and I laughed a bit because of the graphics...
    The thing is, this game added something new to the videogame world/industry and was in tunes with its time. Thats why it sold well, and why we still talk about it today.
     
  10. Morendral

    Morendral Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Posts:
    368
    Blanket statements such as that are more than likely false. I think you are confusing nostalgia with quality. Yes, there is a larger percentage of shovelware out there but people have unprecedented access to markets and tools now. Also we have the benefit of hindsight to see what worked in the past to capitalize on successes, as was mentioned with Skyrim.

    If Mario were released today, it would just be another platformer with crappy "retro" graphics.
     
    MishMash, Khao, Niels and 2 others like this.
  11. Desix

    Desix Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2016
    Posts:
    434
    The closer something looks like real life the less stylised it is and that can possibly be a negative. Games where there's a lot to be interpreted, like ps1/saturn/n64, even pixel art games, typically have a lot more charm visually than those going for realism. They might have a more unique look and make you fill out some of the gaps in your head, like a book - wheras the new realistic version of the game would be the movie of this scenario, where it's all decided for you.

    Something like Uncharted 4 can't help but impress me though, and for something like GTA it's perfect. Some games still use mad stylisation even with high quality modern graphics. Depends on the game really.
     
    DukeSoft and Misty like this.
  12. Misty

    Misty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    1,024
    Sorry, but neither of you know what you are talking about.

    "Goldeneye is best on 64?" Are you serious mate?
    So the original n64, with its 320x240 resolution, lag issues, and awkward n64 controls?

    And you think that version of goldeneye is better than the PC emulated version, with its 1024x768 resolution, 60 fps framerate, and smooth gamepad input? What, is your computer a potato, and can't run emulated 20 year old games?

    Maybe you are confused, maybe you thought I was talking about Goldeneye Source. When I made it abundantly clear several times I was talking about emulated Goldeneye 64.


    Both eras are full of both? What games of this era are truly amazing? There are some nice and decent games of this era but none which truly blew me away.
    That's what I thought it was, at first.
    And then I realized that's not what it was, and that games were actually getting worse.
    One of the reasons is that modern graphics are not part of a higher-frame of mind.
    A higher frame of mind is like when you are dreaming, and in a fancy hotel. Of if you feel really positive and got a vacation. And your mind starts wandering. When my mind starts wandering I think about polygon graphics of the old days. And it gives me euphoria. And I say to myself, what about newer graphics like that grass shader on games of 2018? And thinking about these games messes up my euphoria, because something is off about the graphics.
    Its like the old games the polygons were its own art style. But the new games, its like uncanny valley, it tries to look like real life but its off somehow, making it worse.

    Second its the art itself. You ever go to a run down urban store in the city? It gives you bad vibes, because the artist was untalented. But have you ever been to a five star hotel on a vacation? It gives you good vibes because the scenery was made by a better artist. With modern games they dont seem to have good artists like they used to. Modern games are the equivalent of a modern art museum.

    Now consider the case of Halo 1. Halo 1 is more fun than Halo 5 because, in Halo 5 you can't die, it has become modernized. And in Halo 5 you have squadmates now, because the enemies are freakishly hard to kill. But the gameplay is the same as Halo 2. Halo 5 lost the simple charm of Halo 1. And it did not really improve on Halo 1's formula, so when Halo 1 came out it was new, and different, and wow'ed everybody. You expected some kind of progression. But Halo 5 is just more of the same, nothing about it is new and different except for a bit more polygons and some downgrades to the gameplay.

    And no its not the nostalgia.
    Goldeneye 64 (on pc) is objectively more fun to play than Halo 5.
    The only thing better is Halo 5's story, because I already know Goldeneye's story from the get go and there is no voice acting in it.
    It is NOT nostalgia. I have explained how the game is objectively more fun to play.
    Here is an example.
    In the second level of Goldeneye you are running around, you are running very fast and the gunplay is very smooth. Then you get to an area where all the enemies rush and swarm you into a corner. It is very intense and frantic and you are about to die. You have to shoot the cluster of enemies in a frantic and desperate manner, running out of ammo and having to quickly reload. Your heart is beating and the music matches how you are feeling.
    Contrast this to Halo 5.
    It is mostly long range, impersonal combat. The aiming is rigid, robotic, does not have realistic aiming sway like goldeneye does. Aiming does not feel like being a sniper in real life, rather it feels like being a robot fiddling with the joystick hoping to reach the sweet spot. Aiming does not feel like an art it feels like a process, like you are at an assembly line. Enemies all have death animations that look almost the same no matter where you hit them.
    When you die in Halo 5, your squad mates just recover you, so no sweat. Or if they can't, just reset the checkpoint. It is no sweat, doesn't really feel like a big deal.
    In goldeneye, when you die, its embarassing, it shows a replay of you dying all from different angles while a bunch of viscious russians are gunning you down. In goldeneye your actions have costs. In goldeneye your choices have costs. In Halo, you dont make choices, each level is linear and you just follow the waypoint, and there are no special tasks or items in an inventory, Halo doesnt even have an inventory. In Halo you dont have to hold someone hostage and then hack a computer, you dont have to find or copy keys, you dont have to figure out puzzles, you dont have to do anything but shoot. Halo 5 also does not have memorable tunes like the original did, it is just the usual background noise. In Halo your actions do not have costs. If you get shot, your health will recharge. If you die your team will revive you. If they cant revive, just respawn to the last checkpoint. When you die in goldeneye, you hear epic death music. When you die in Halo, you hear nothing, death has no consequence to the game.
    When enemies get close to you in goldeneye, its a harrowing experience. But if enemies get close to you in Halo, you either melee and they die, or you miss the melee, and they kill you instantly in an anti-climatic manner.



    Again none of this is subjective, it follows game design principles.


    Now I know someone is going to post and completely ignore that I am talking about the PC version of goldeneye emulated. Which is the truest version of goldeneye without technical limitations of its day.

    I saw OneEyedJak's review of Goldeneye64. His review is actually irrelevant. He unfairly reviewed it based on the n64 version which had framerate issues, controller issues, and screen resolution issues. The PC emulated version is the real and best version of Goldeneye 64.

    Doom 1 and Doom 2 cannot be compared to Doom 3, as Doom 3 is a total turd, but Doom 4 I consider an actual Doom game, and as such can be compared.

    There are some good things about Doom 4, such as the smooth combat and movement. The movement is true to the original Dooms. And they disabled sprinting, I think sprinting messed up the gameplay of Doom 1 and 2 and shouldn't have been put in it. But the artstyle of the Doom 4 demo is just atrocious. Yes the graphics look visually nice. But where it fails is the color theory of the game, it feels like it's trying to be a simulator of Mars rather than a game, because everything just looks red and orange or those generic dismal sci fi textures. For example, when you get to the end of Doom 1 there is a recognizable "end door" texture. But the end of Doom 4 demo is just a pile of unrecognizable pipes and crates and no real theme to the end room, its just generic sci-fi fluff. And yes the gameplay of Doom 4 demo is repetitive. When I first played Doom 4 demo he had me heart and soul, I swore I would buy this game. Mostly I was just thankful they made an actual proper game and that this wasn't the equivalent of Perfect Dark Zero or Doom 3. I got to the elevator, which did a thing and I expected it to be over and say "BUY THE FULL GAME NOW." But then the game just kept going, and going. And then I started to change my mind. It just started to get repetitive. Killing enemies started to seem like a chore. And it seemed like it was about meleeing enemies over and over. And when I ran out of ammo I had a handgun that shot infinite goo. It kind of lost the gritty handgun of the original that shot bullets.

    One of the main issues of Doom 4 demo is the levels are not interesting. You know what you are gonna get, you have seen it all before. Contrast this to the beginning of Metroid Prime 2. You are on an alien world, similar to Mars. But everything just kind of flows together and is scenic. Each room adds a little spice. But on Doom 4 there are no suprises, you know what you are gonna get are the most generic and dismal sci fi rooms, devoid of even the slightest feminine touch or sprucing up. It kind of makes you feel like a janitor cleaning up mars on some assignment.

    Doom 2016 may be the coolest modern game you've played lately, but only because the bar is set so low.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  13. Smiechu

    Smiechu Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Posts:
    626
    @Misty

    All the time you're missing one subjective factor - feelings / taste. This is like with music, one loves old school thrash metal, the other loves 80's hiphop, or simply classical music and other modern EDM. You can argue which is the best, give 1000 cons and pros but in the end it all comes to a subjective feeling of the listener and his taste.

    So, no... the new games are not worse as the old ones. But as the industry is getting adult now, it's very hard to produce and get up with somethimg fresh and new.

    Don't play the demo of Doom 2016 play the full game! Mars scenario is only a very small part of the game. My personal subjective feeling about the game was quite the same as over 20 years ago when I saw doom 1 for the first time. And I was so fixed on the game I played it first in lowest details possible before my new graphic card arrived! Same kind of determination as 20 years ago.
    I had the same with Fallout 3, played it almost 24/7, a little bit more and I would fail the semester when I studied.

    I don't want to argue if doom 2016 is good game or not. It's just a example of a modern game which excited me just like I was a small kid.

    I don't agree that modern games are worse. The market is saturated and there are big budgets and marketing involved, leading to situations where mediocre ideas come to life.

    Edit:
    No the bar is not to low. I play games for almost 25years. I lived through the whole era of PC gaming, and I've never set my bar to low for any of the games I played.
     
  14. Bentley

    Bentley Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2017
    Posts:
    782
    Haha, well said. For me, nostalgia will always make those games seem better. And they could be better. Who knows. FF1 will always be my favorite game.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  15. Misty

    Misty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    1,024
    No it is not subjective taste. And modern music is getting progressively bad.
    https://ihsmessenger.com/news/2017/05/09/music-people-who-make-it-getting-worse/
    https://playback.fm/blog/science-proved-music-getting-worse
    https://science.slashdot.org/story/...c-becoming-louder-simpler-and-more-repetitive




    The game industry is getting progressively bad.
    I have stated reasons why it is so.
    There are 3 primary reasons.
    1. Health regen and revives reduces the thrill of suspense of the game. Games are watered down and made simple so that even the most inept can play. This is fine, in the olden days that was called "Easy mode". But it seems like devs have got lazy, and everything is default set in "easy mode", but just adding more enemies for harder modes. In the past, "Easy mode" meant you didn't have to do puzzles. Hard mode was the default, with puzzles, that easy mode removed. But now "easy mode" is the default, they just removed the puzzles altogether. and hard mode is just easy mode, with stronger enemies.
    2. Artists no longer are as talented as before. This could be due to people who lack deep life experiences taking over the industry. Or it could be due to technology becoming more complicated and overwhelming artists.
    3. Good game theory is either ignored, not followed, or just disrespected, in an attempt to be more "avant-garde".


     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  16. Niels

    Niels Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    817
    I must be the only one that played goldeneye back in the days and thought to myself, I rather be playing quake right now... Despite all its praise I was never really fond of goldeneye/perfect dark, and I think the pc FPS scene was miles ahead of it.
     
  17. Smiechu

    Smiechu Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Posts:
    626
    Lol...
    Please... pop music is crap, and everybody knows that. In the game industry this are all those endless micropayement massive multiplayer handy games. This is real crap set only to dig money from lazy kids and stupid peaple... I think this is something nobody needs to discuss.
    If you want to make a reasonable comperation take i.e. metal music genre, it evolves all the time and many, many bands make extreme great music now days.
    Your last arguments:
    1. Eeee what? Let's take our doom example. As a 9-10yo kid I was able to finish the the game on standard difficulty without bigger problems. The new Doom on standard difficulty was quite challenging for me. One difficulty higher and the game is very challenging.
    2. What???? It's 100% subjective belief. One more time, I find the arts of doom2016 on very high level. The view on burning argent tower after come back from hell is hipnotyzing.
    3. There was so many games created from every genre, that there is no such thing. You cannot simply suit every taste with one game.
    Here our doom example... gamplay in new doom encourages the player to use all variaty of weapons, players needs to move during the fight, and encounter enemies from close diatance, not simply stay in one spot of the map and shoot from safe spot. You don't like it, I find it great and refreshing.

    I'll say it one more time. All you state is your subjective feeling. We can argue all week and it won't bring anything. There ware always better and worse games.

    In the end... remember that there is one objective factor. Income the game made.
     
    Orak likes this.
  18. Toque

    Toque Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Posts:
    999
    I think games are an art form. Really hard to say one art is better than another.

    But I respect your thorough argument and it’s fun to debate.

    Like comparing a 68 Camero to a 2018 mustang.

    Great fun discussing. Thanks for your comment.
     
    Bentley likes this.
  19. Rob

    Rob Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Posts:
    680
    I've never been into FPS games much so I never played the new doom and I only played the original for a short time (on the SNES?) before I decided it wasn't for me. I have seen many critics say that the newer Doom games (from Bethesda?) are awesome though.

    I have some more comparisons from my own experience to share though. Take the original XCOM game. One of my favourite games to play when it first came out and no other game that I bought and played afterwards quite filled the same niche (and I bought many similar games) UNTIL Firaxis' remake. I've gone back to play the original XCOM several times, using openXcom for smoother gameplay, but I can't say the original is better than the remake.

    The remake gives you a much smaller squad BUT the customizability and attachment I have with those fewer soldiers is much greater than with the original. The cutscenes are cool, the missions are more varied and the music...? The music is frickin awesome and really gets me pumped to play.

    When you say newer games feel "juvenile" maybe you mean they're accessible to a wider audience? I remember playing Spectrum games with no idea of how to play. You had to learn as you go, fail and die a lot and there was no google to help you out, if you got stuck. It was either "try again" or "give up". Now we have tutorial missions or inventive ways to express to players how the game works.

    Gaming has evolved and many companies have gone for $$$ over quality along the way but that doesn't mean that older games are better.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  20. Ralucipe

    Ralucipe Member GMCJam Champ

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2016
    Posts:
    104
    You swear up and down that your argument is 100% objective, but you’re just wrong.

    You’re constantly referencing things like art and gameplay, but the fact of the matter is that humans must judge these game elements for themselves, which inherently makes them subjective judgements. There is NO objectivity when it comes to judging the quality of games.

    Aside from all that, you can cherrypick terrible games from the modern era all day long. But there were terrible equivalents long ago - we just don’t remember them because they weren’t memorable. We only ever remember the good games of the old times.

    I think Doom 2016 is a really fun and good-looking game. But that’s my opinion, and it’s completely subjective, just like yours. Just understand that much more of the gaming community seems to sympathize with my own stance on Doom rather than yours. That’s fine, but then let’s debate why we think the graphics and gameplay are better or worse, instead of why our thoughts on the graphics and gameplay are infallible because of some imaginary subjective foundation.
     
  21. Misty

    Misty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    1,024
    Bollox.

    And it is objective because your body vitals can be measured and your organs can be determined to be healthier or sicker while playing, also your brain waves can be analyzed to either be enjoying the game or not enjoying the game.
     
  22. GMWolf

    GMWolf aka fel666

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    3,390
    Older games are, in general, objectively worse. (It's just that the past has more gems than the present, it's just a statistical thing)
    We are just less forgiving these days.
    Also, we should realise that the games industry is moving in anither, new direction.
    Recently, we have seen games as a service taking over many studios, for the better or for the worst.
     
    Multimagyar likes this.
  23. Misty

    Misty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    1,024
    Bam.

    Hired. :cool:
     
    Guest User likes this.
  24. Ralucipe

    Ralucipe Member GMCJam Champ

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2016
    Posts:
    104
    I’m sorry, but no matter what you say, this is completely subjective. You can argue this position all day long and that’s fine, but it’s an opinion. There is not a standardized method of measuring “feel”. Everybody defines “feel” differently.

    Aside from that being a ridiculous way of justifying that games have an objective amount of “fun”, you miss the fact that not everyone will react to the same game in the same way. This is why your argument will never have an objective foundation. As long as humans define a value by their own judgement, any conclusions that you draw from said value will be purely subjective.

    We can argue about the state of economy using hard numbers and stats with a global scope - this means we can form objective arguments about it. The same does not apply to video games.
     
  25. GMWolf

    GMWolf aka fel666

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    3,390
    Again, it's a statistics thing.
    More better games in the past, simply because the past is a longer period of time than the present.

    You clearly haven't played all the absolutely terrible games that came out in the early days.
    We are far more consistent these days, making consistently good games.
    And we still come out with gems too
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
    Rob, MishMash and Ralucipe like this.
  26. GMWolf

    GMWolf aka fel666

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    3,390
    Well, again, the past is vast, the present is an infenetesimal.
    It's only normal for the past to contain more gems than the present.
    But recently we have seen some exelent games, with the likes of the Witcher, FTL, Mario odyssey, god of war, doom, near automata, etc (doing my best to cover range of genres)
     
    Multimagyar likes this.
  27. Smiechu

    Smiechu Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Posts:
    626
    Nobody is hating or attacking.
    Simply other people disagree with statement "older games are still better" and that @Misty assumes his arguments are objective.

    The topic would be much nicer if @Misty would formulate such a statement:
    "Why I personally find older games still better"... I would like to present you my "subjective" arguments.

    If he likes the Goldeneye, it's ok. very nice, but please don't tell me what should I like or not and why.

    Games are form of art and they will always be judged by players in terms of personal, subjective tastes, feelings, cultural preferences, fantasies and interpretations.
    The same way there is no musical masterpiece which would suit all, the same way there is no such game.

    Like I've said, I had this great opportunity to live through the dawn of PC gaming era and I've spend a lot of time with many good and bad games during this 25 years.
    Today if a game makes me excited the same way like I was excited as I was a little kid, it's in my opinion a well made game.
     
    Ralucipe likes this.
  28. Ralucipe

    Ralucipe Member GMCJam Champ

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2016
    Posts:
    104
    Fallout 76 hasn’t even been released yet...

    One important thing to note: as time has gone on, the average person has gained significantly better access to game development (which increases the number of games in the market), and access to games in general has also become significantly better. Which means nowadays it is ludicrously easy to get downright terrible games. It doesn’t mean the quality of games across the industry has decreased, it just means technology has enabled a greater volume of low-quality games.
     
  29. Khao

    Khao Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    150
    Do you only play AAA first person shooters or something? Because most of the things you're talking about seem to only apply to the modern shooter rather than the modern games in general. And if that's the case, that's the real problem here; you're just playing games on an extremely small niche and assuming that the entire industry is like that. Most of your statements seem extremely alien to me, because I play games that don't meet any of your complaints on a daily basis. And I can, in fact remember games just like the "bad" modern games you're describing being made 20 years ago.

    This is why the "Music today is worse" idea is also total bull****, as it always, always focuses on entertainment-focused pop music with high production values.

    Welp, newsflash: Pop is not the only genre being produced today. If pop music is all you can find, sorry mate, but that is your problem.

    Also I have to say that I'm honestly baffled you think of Goldeneye as a game with some sort of massive artistic value, like what? That game is pretty much one of the best examples of a developer in the 90s getting carried away with blindly chasing for realism as opposed to actual quality. Characters heads are literally photographs applied to a cube, and the environments are no less generic than the average shooter made today. It looked amazing back in the day, but after a year it was already dated.

    Ooookaaaaaaaaay I can finally see what this is all about.

    [​IMG]

    The fact that half the games you've mentioned have not been released just says a lot to be honest.
     
    Guest User, Rob, MishMash and 2 others like this.
  30. Ankokushin

    Ankokushin Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2016
    Posts:
    97
    I have to partially disagree with OP. As a matter of fact, when I read the title, I clicked on the post already preparing goldeneye 64 as my argument against old games.

    GoldenEye was great at its time. I was 12, I think, and the game resonated with me. I had the time of my life playing it, BUT It does not hold today. All the great things it had have long been absorbed into the "norm". Goldneye had "quests" in the form of objectives, which was revolutionary at the time because you didn´t just shoot. Now this has long been absorbed into pretty much every AAA title. Enemies reacted differently depending on the shot, now a pretty normal thing. And... that´s it, really. Maps were ok, mostly. It looked as good as it could at the time, which is not much.

    GOOD THINGS

    Many of the opening arguments of OP (pause menu looks stylish, gunplay is good, 007 is an inherently good idea) are very subjective and I will not address them. I will grant the OP one thing: old games were very serious with their core mechanic. Goldeneye was an action shooter and it felt like it through and through. People didn´t waste your time with collectables or puzzles, which is something nearly unavoidable nowadays in the aaa games. Old games also had the advantage of "tech-based originality" (a concept I just arrogantly came up with) which is the fact that anything new you wanted to invent, you had to create it nearly from scratch and most companies could not afford that. Many people might have had the ideas in Goldeneye before it, but Rare had the means to produce them - and this greatly increases the overall quality of the game at the time. It had huge real-3d environments, physics(sort of), incredible 3d body animations for the time. Well, it had these positively good things.
    Contemporary games have to be ACTUALLY creative to stand out in this regard, rather than discovering a means to produce something everybody wants to do.

    GOOD AND BAD THINGS

    Story. Nowadays games which recycle movie stories tend to flop. This is, of course, due to poor production values and rushed releases, but also because people don´t want to see the same stories again. (This is not true, perhaps, for children games. Childrens love to see the same story over and over.) This is so true that, even today, companies trying to sell games with their movie brand on it change the story. It is always something like "this is before the events of the movie" or "this is in the same universe of the movie" or whatever.
    The reason why we need this "new story" is because now games are a viable media for telling stories. There are cutscenes, voice acting, texts all over. It is now common and expected that the game will give us story content. Back then it was hard to present a story in a game (remember how revolutionary Kojima was in PS1?) and so using the story of a popular movie worked very well. The game didn´t need to tell you what was happening because you already knew. Also, you wanted to play a game, not watch a story.
    Nowadays it would not work.

    BAD THINGS
    It´s boring nowadays, man. It is too simple and straightfoward. It is not tactical at all - you only have to be fast on your fingers and memorize the levels. Nowadays we have randomized levels, advanced AI, cover (controversial, but I really like it), different ways to interact with the enemies and map, survival dynamics and the list goes on and on...
    And this boring factor is true for most games back then. If OP had given Mario 64 as an example of a good old game this would be a much more complicated discussion, I think.

    Now, I don´t want to accuse the defenders of old games of Nostalgia, pure and simple. I think that the big studios really took more risks back them and AAA games were really special and unique. Nowadays companies seem to be afraid of making investments in things that are not guaranteed and we end up seeing a lot of repetition from big studios. But considering what sony is doing, what crowdfunding enables, whant indies are doing and what nintendo recently has done, I actually think we are in a golden age of games, man. I cannot keep up with all the games I actually want to plau, and ten years ago I only looked forward to twp or three titles every year.

    I DO miss the old J-RPGs, though.
    Damn, they had soul.
     
    Guest User likes this.
  31. Smiechu

    Smiechu Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Posts:
    626
    OK! Please tell me in which year, there ware hordes of super ultra games rushing through the market??
     
    Ralucipe likes this.
  32. GMWolf

    GMWolf aka fel666

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    3,390
    That would be the year the switch was released. Seriously, I searched a lot, I haven't seen such a good lineup before.
    You can't really look only at the past 2years. That's barely the development window for a game. (Many take 5 or more).

    I actually can't wait to try out anthem. Looks very fun, especially with friends.
    Destiny 2: granted.
    Mister hunter world: not my type, but I have hear a lot of good things about it.
    Fallout 76: do we even know anything about that game yet?

    It's not even relevant, every year has had its bad video games. It's not a relevant argument.
     
  33. Khao

    Khao Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    150
    Gotta say, as much as I inherently disagree with the idea of "old games were better and modern games are trash", 1998.

    Still the best year in gaming history. At least one absolute freaking masterpiece or two was released every month.

    But that's still not an argument to say that all modern games are bad. At least not in comparison to the average game made a decade or two ago.
     
  34. Smiechu

    Smiechu Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2017
    Posts:
    626
    This was this boom year after first wave of big commercial successes in PC gaming + incredible speed of hardware development + popularization of internet and online gaming. That what happens in that period was astonishing.
     
  35. GMWolf

    GMWolf aka fel666

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    3,390
    I think one issue may be with how we judge games; if we see the same things over and over again, with little inovation, we will judge the new games worse, even if they improve upon the genre incrementally.
    Games now that refine the genres previously explored are objectively better than the games that came before. But because it's nothing new, nothing to capture our imagination again, we don't judge them as being as good.
     
    Ralucipe likes this.
  36. Alix

    Alix Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Posts:
    33
    tldr: gr8 b8 m8
     
  37. Toque

    Toque Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Posts:
    999
    So I watched a video of goldeneye. Looks like a fun first person shooter.

    I played Fortnite for the first time yesterday.

    Really hard to compare these things.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
    Rob likes this.
  38. Ralucipe

    Ralucipe Member GMCJam Champ

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2016
    Posts:
    104
    I mean this in the nicest possible way: have you ever been on the internet before?

    If someone posts an opinion, then people are gonna disagree with said opinion. That’s the whole point of message boards.
     
  39. Neptune

    Neptune Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,023
    IMO...
    There are good new games, and good old games.
    But one thing is for DAMN sure... fancy graphics should not be substituted for engaging game-play and/or storytelling.

    So if older games are indeed 'better' than new games (on average?), its probably because they couldn't rely on whistles and bangs to buy their audience...

    And this is just an idea, but perhaps sometimes new 'good' games have the potential to be great, but its just clouded by too much... fluff.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
    Bentley, Toque and (deleted member) like this.
  40. GMWolf

    GMWolf aka fel666

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    3,390
    It's true that there is a graphics arms race at the moment.
    Making games more expensive too :eek:
     
  41. Neptune

    Neptune Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,023
    I agree there is definitely an arms race.

    However, triple-A games SHOULD be more expensive... These big games have always been 60$ as far as I can remember... Unchanging through inflation (60$ was worth much more back then).
    This forces these big companies to do all kinds of shiesty things like loot-boxes and microtransactions...

    Even worse, is when indie teams make a good quality game and release it for 10$... All this does it further set the expectation of low game prices for the average gamer.
     
  42. GMWolf

    GMWolf aka fel666

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    3,390
    I 100% agree, but this does ignore that the tools being developed should enable the focus to shift towards the content side, but we still see a huge focus on the graphics a game has.
     
    Bentley and Neptune like this.
  43. Misty

    Misty Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    1,024
    There are only 2 new good games.
    Shining Resonance Refrain, and WRC5.

    Name me one new game that is good.

    No, it doesn't. Their fallacies have to be addressed.

    I am sick of people coming on here, and judging Goldeneye by the N64 version, when I specifically, repetitively said you have to judge Goldeneye based on the PC emulator only, and they keep coming on here and complaining about the n64 version of goldeneye, when I keep saying PC emulator only.
     
    Guest User likes this.
  44. GMWolf

    GMWolf aka fel666

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    3,390
    Well, that's a whole other issue right there.
     
    Toque likes this.
  45. BaBiA Game Studio

    BaBiA Game Studio Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2016
    Posts:
    840
    Why is it that everything anyone else is saying which is different to you is a fallacy? Everyone else could turn around and say that everything you are saying is a fallacy. It all boils down to opinions. You say that there are current only 2 new good games, and I would say that neither of those are any good because I don't like them. I could then counter by saying God Of War is a great new game, but I am 90% sure you will just say that I am wrong - even though you have no idea of how I feel playing that game or that based on one of your earlier posts I feel exactly as you claimed can be measured (by my body biological reactions to the gameplay).

    I don't believe that this thread has caused any harm. All it has shown is that @Misty will refuse to acknowledge anybody else's opinion as being anything other than a fallacy. This probably should be locked because you cannot have a discussion with someone who refuses to listen to any other side of the discussion because they claim everyone else does not know what they are talking about.
     
    kagamma, Bentley, Orak and 3 others like this.
  46. Ralucipe

    Ralucipe Member GMCJam Champ

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2016
    Posts:
    104
    Woah man, take it easy. All he was saying was that you shouldn’t call games bad before they’ve even been released.... which, if you ask me, is completely fair.
     
  47. Khao

    Khao Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Posts:
    150
    I'm sorry, sir. I'll never do it again, sir. I didn't realize you were so old and experienced, sir. And I didn't know you could immediately judge unreleased games as "bad" without actually playing them or even providing arguments, but since you're older and also know everything about me, you must be right. I'm deeply, truly ashamed for questioning your wisdom and I'm glad you put my uncultured, inexperienced self in my place. Sir.
     
    Bentley, GMWolf, Guest User and 3 others like this.
  48. HayManMarc

    HayManMarc Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    890
    It's great to have opinions, but it stinks when you force your opinions upon others as gospel.

    Remember, when stating an opinion in a public forum, you will undoubtedly get a differing opinion.
     
    Cpaz, Bentley, Morendral and 2 others like this.
  49. 11clock

    11clock Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2016
    Posts:
    180
    When I go back to play these so called fantastic games of old like Super Metroid and MegaMan X and Link to the Past, I often feel rather disappointed. Super Metroid’s platforming physics are god awful and the environment just feels like a mess of pixels, MegaMan X’s level design felt really cheap and the game has severe slowdown issues (at least on the New 3DS port), and I didn’t like the feel of combat in Link to the Past, your range feels too short and there isn’t enough “oomph” to it, maybe I got too spoiled by Link Between Worlds which was pretty awesome. On another note I found Yoshi’s Island extremely dragged out and bland.

    I do understand the appeal of some older titles. Super Mario World is pretty great, and Sonic 3 & Knuckles. I also love the crisp look of pixel art. But I think I just much prefer “throwback” retro games for incorporating modern features and having better design overall.
     
    Toque likes this.
  50. Toque

    Toque Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Posts:
    999
    I do respect your passion for playing goldeneye.

    I remember playing pitfall on the Atari 2600 and it was great.

    Playing Mario brothers for the first time and it blew me away.

    It’s okay if people don’t like the games I love.

    Now I have to play this goldeneye game you love. It better be good.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice