The general decline of gaming

[JarlFrank]

I'm sure all of you are familiar with the following conversation:
Oldfag: "Man, games sure were better back then..."
Newfag: "It's just nostalgia back then there were shit games too you only forgot them and remember only the good ones."

Thusly, or similar, go many conversations with newfags about the good old days. It's just nostalgia! they say. You only remember the good games, and then you forget about their flaws! Then they say how games are better today since technology has progressed, and all the usual crap. And while most of what they say is just dumb newfaggery, there is one point nobody can deny: the past had its share of mediocre and shit games, too.

But, thing is: shit games back then were less shit - or, at least, differently shit than modern shit games. Let me explain.
Today, most games, and almost all of the big budget games made by major mainstream companies, are pure derivative shit. At least every second shooter nowadays is a clone of Call of Duty, or of Gears of War. They copy everything - the exact same gameplay without any major variations (lol popamole), similar settings and characters (pseudo-realistic military shooter with you being generic soldier dude) and, in some cases, even graphics and art design look so similar that you can look at 3 screenshots of 3 different games and believe that they're all of the same game. They also have the same level design - linear levels with "cinematic" cutscenes and no branching paths or exploration whatsoever.

Back then, we did have countless mediocre shooters, too. Most of them were solid, though, and if one was shit, it wasn't because it was exactly like all the others - it was because of exceptionally shit design, or because it tried something different and failed. But even those games which were basically clones of Qake or Unreal, using the same style of gameplay, were different in story and art design. Let me just list a few older shooters and action games, especially those that have been mostly forgotten today:

Star Trek: Klingon Honor Guard, a shooter set in the ST universe where you play a Klingon warrior
The Wheel of Time, a fantasy shooter set in the WoT setting
Heavy Metal FAKK², a third person shooter/slasher made as a sequel to the cartoon movie Heavy Metal 2000
American McGee's Alice, an action/platformer based on a very interesting interpretation of Alice in Wonderland
Star Trek: Elite Force, another Star Trek shooter where you play as a member of an elite combat team on Voyager
Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast, a Star Wars shooter where you play a Jedi and where you have a lighsaber in addition to guns
Gunman Chronicles, a game in the Half-Life engine which plays on a tropical planet with dinosaurs

Most of these are good, some are mediocre (Gunman Chronicles was rather meh), but all of them are somehow interesting and different from each other. They all have rather interesting settings and stories. And what do we have nowadays? In most modern shooters you play a nondescript soldier guy in a modern pseudo-realistic setting. There's no innovation. There's no creativity. It's always the same.

Fact is, back then developers still tried different things. Nowdays, everyone copies what's popular, and copies so exactly that the games end up being almost the same.

Oh, sure, there were clones en masse back then, too. Not everything was good. There were the hordes and hordes of shitty Diablo clones, for example. But hey, at least most of them had interesting settings or at least some new shitty gimmick feature which set it apart from the others. Didn't change the fact that it was shit, but at least it was different-flavoured shit, unlike today where all the shit is the same.

Sure, there was the decline of RPGs in the mid-90s where everyone just made shitty shovelware dungeon crawler clones with bad design, but both gamers and the press criticized them for being shit and RPGs seemed to be a dying genre, until Baldur's Gate, Fallout and Diablo came and brought some fresh wind. But even the most banal and boring dungeon crawler of back then was more fun to play than, say, Dragon Age 2 with its filler combat and horrible writing. In fact, if anyone had released DA2 in the 90s or early 2000s, both gamers and the press would have bashed it for horrible design, bad gameplay and awkward writing. Nowadays, it gets good scores in magazines because it's made by a big publisher and the masses gobble it up either because they have no taste, or because they don't know any better and believe anything they read.

Yes, there was shit in the past. But it wasn't just clones of clones that clone clones as it is today, there were many flavours of shit while today shit all tastes the same, and there's nothing else on the menu. And back then, shit didn't recieve raving scores just because it's backed by a huge publisher like EA or Ubisoft. Today, people are made to believe shit is good, and that shit is supposed to be the new step of evolution in the genre. Criticize DA2 for being shit? Cue hordes of fanboys who say that you're an old fart who doesn't accept the new revolutionary direction the genre is taking. Back then, level scaling as in Oblivion would've been ridiculed by everyone. Today, it's a revolutionary feature that makes games more accessible and immersive.

All that said, I have more fun with some of the shit games of days gone past than with some of the merely mediocre games of nowadays, because nowadays, everything we get is the same. If this is supposed to be the "revolutionary" "new age" of gaming, then it's a very boring revolution when interesting ideas and different, sometimes experimental, games are replaced with games that all play the same and look the same.

So, if anyone says "LOL GAMES WERENT BETTER BACK THEN ITS JUST NOSTALGIA, YOU'RE JUST AN OLD FART WHO CANNOT ACCEPT THE NEW DIRECTION GAMING IS TAKING" to me again, I will just wait till ITZ comes and visit him while his wife is taken by nigger rape squads, his baby grilled for food and his ass sodomized by manboons and tell him: "You just aren't ready to accept the new direction society is taking. Why are you so resistant to change? This isn't your grandpa's society anymore, this is the new society for modern people, so you either accept it or GTFO." Because what's happening to gaming now is indeed very similar to this post-ITZ situation.

 

[Raapys]

The nostalgia thing would have made sense...if I didn't play another of these old games like once a week and still enjoyed it. But I do, so at least for me that nostalgia excuse is complete non-sense.

That said, there are some annoying things which tend to be more normal in old games. Bad/clunky UI, for instance.

But yeah, as you say, they dared try new things. Often it failed, sometimes it succeeded. Again it boils down to money though. They could afford making a game which didn't sell too well, because they didn't spend all that much cash on it. But today you practically just have two groups of developers; triple-A developers who won't make a game without spending countless millions and thus can't afford to experiment, and one-man indie developers who don't have anything to spend at all and can't really afford to experiment either. We've sort of lost the 'middle-class' developers, the pioneers with a vision of their own perfect game and the balls to try and make it.

 

[MetalCraze]

Good rant, bro. Read it all.

I completely forgot about FAKK2 and Jedi Knight 2 these days. Those were some good games from back in the day.
Too bad FAKK never got a sequel although it ends with a cliffhanger.
Bah even Jedi Academy was good for what it is, even despite being inferior to JO.

Gotta complete Wheel of Time one of these days.

It's true that devs failed also because they tried to do different stuff. Daikatana failed not because it was a clone of Doom as many were at that time.

Also have you noticed how nearly all of games on your list use Q3 engine?

 

[zeitgeist]

One must be both capable of a certain level of self-reflection to discern whether their own memories (and even impressions while replaying) of a particular game are tainted by nostalgia or not, and be informed enough to analyze how the game compared to other games back in the day, how it compares to games these days and so on.

People who use the nostalgia argument in all seriousness (as opposed to trolling or self-referential parody or whatever) are more often than not incapable of doing this, project this inability to the entire world, and thus think that everyone just worships the "games they played when they were twelve" indiscriminately, like they worship their Pokemon and Halo and Half Life 2. All in all it's not a very compelling argument, to put it mildly.

 

[Jaesun]

Fact is, back then developers still tried different things. Nowdays, everyone copies what's popular, and copies so exactly that the games end up being almost the same.

 

[spectre]

I've alyways said that the decline was always there, popamole wasn't invented in the XXI century, I remember people fapping over interactice movies in the 90s, American Laser Games, Mad Dog McCree, and shit like that. If I don't remember anything earlier, that's just because I used to call poop gawgawh back then.

I wouldn't say nostalgia isn't a factor, it always is to an extent.

Fact is, shit has declined and inclined over all these years. It's not just the quaility of the multimedia, Raapys already mentioned improvement in the UI department, but there's more to it, game complexity has increased, not saying all games are complex, but just compare the strategy games of yore to, say, Paradox games.

Thing is, gaming nowadays became sirius business, with big money, big sales figures and big marketing.
That's all fine with me, the medium slowly comes of age, financially speaking, but the audience is pretty damn slow to catch up - it's still considered kiddie stuff, unworthy of serious attention, just some shit you're supposed ditch when you get a day job and impregnate a female.

 

[baronjohn]

Star Trek: Klingon Honor Guard, a shooter set in the ST universe where you play a Klingon warrior
The Wheel of Time, a fantasy shooter set in the WoT setting
Heavy Metal FAKK², a third person shooter/slasher made as a sequel to the cartoon movie Heavy Metal 2000
American McGee's Alice, an action/platformer based on a very interesting interpretation of Alice in Wonderland
Star Trek: Elite Force, another Star Trek shooter where you play as a member of an elite combat team on Voyager
Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast, a Star Wars shooter where you play a Jedi and where you have a lighsaber in addition to guns
Gunman Chronicles, a game in the Half-Life engine which plays on a tropical planet with dinosaurs

These are all as banal, shit, boring as the popamole shit today.

 

[JarlFrank]

Also have you noticed how nearly all of games on your list use Q3 engine?

Eh, about half use Q3 and half use Unreal Engine I think. Those were probably just the most popular engines back then.

Now compare the games made on those two engines to the games made on Unreal 3 engine, where you usually notice on first glance that it's made with U3 engine because almost all games made in it look similar because modern devs have no creativity.

 

[Volrath]

You forgot Shogo and NOLF.

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

You forgot Shogo and NOLF.

Mang, don't remind me.

Monolith has become total shit lately. Wonder if it has to do with WBI or with consoles.

 

[Idiott]

 

[deuxhero]

Chex Quest was a shameless Doom clone (using the engine and reskined weapons), but it had style (the fact that it was also free helped).

Star Trek: Klingon Honor Guard, a shooter set in the ST universe where you play a Klingon warrior
The Wheel of Time, a fantasy shooter set in the WoT setting
Heavy Metal FAKK², a third person shooter/slasher made as a sequel to the cartoon movie Heavy Metal 2000
American McGee's Alice, an action/platformer based on a very interesting interpretation of Alice in Wonderland
Star Trek: Elite Force, another Star Trek shooter where you play as a member of an elite combat team on Voyager
Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast, a Star Wars shooter where you play a Jedi and where you have a lighsaber in addition to guns
Gunman Chronicles, a game in the Half-Life engine which plays on a tropical planet with dinosaurs

These are all as banal, shit, boring as the popamole shit today.

wut?

 

[7hm]

I don't buy it. There was a ton of crap back then, and there's a ton of crap now. The games you listed, for example, were crap back then and remain crap now. They may have been examples of experimentation and innovation (arguable) but they weren't great games, they were "good for what it is" at best.

There is a ton of innovation and experimentation in gaming right now. Perhaps not in every genre (RPG's are certainly not in a fantastic state, though this isn't a new development), but overall there are innovative new games coming out every year.

If you restrict yourself to a small subset of AAA gaming and then complain that you don't like what you see, you have noone to blame but yourself. You knew DA2 was going to be crap, so why even worry about it (seriously, all you people who are wringing your hands about it and talking about it ad nauseum are the problem, just fucking ignore it - it's a rushed sequel to a surprise success, the odds were strong that it would be shit).

also

shit didn't recieve raving scores just because it's backed by a huge publisher like EA or Ubisoft

Not for the entire history of gaming journalism, and not for every single magazine, but by 2000 for the major mags it did. It had to be truly awful for the payola not to affect it.

edit: Chex Quest, really?

Chex Quest didn't have fucking style. It wasn't anywhere close to as good a game as what it was trying to copy, the graphics and art were shit, the controls were shit, and it was a fucking ad for a brand of cereal.

There are some (tons) of great older games, but using Chex Quest in an argument for the quality of old games really doesn't help.

 

[laclongquan]

You tell 'im, 2010 newfag. You tell 'im.

I remember FAKK2. Also the fact is this game nothing special even in that day.

And what the hell but all your game seem to be 1st person shooter, is it not? In those day we were wrestling with Fallout2, Knight of Merchant, Lord of Realm2, Caesar3 etc and etc...

Not to say that there's no good games in the old days. But these new days have good games also, once you drop the antipathy of "AAA", "Japmade" etc. Many good games. The Witcher for the newest, Sengoku Rance, Romance of THree Kingdoms are a solid series from the old days to now, etc and etc...

 

[JarlFrank]

I don't buy it. There was a ton of crap back then, and there's a ton of crap now. The games you listed, for example, were crap back then and remain crap now. They may have been examples of experimentation and innovation (arguable) but they weren't great games, they were "good for what it is" at best.

The games I listed are games I enjoy for what it is. And they have infinitely better design than the linear popamole fuckfests of today. Thing is, general design concepts have changed from back then to now. Back then, even the shitty clones tried to be games. They included secret areas, a variety of fun weapons and enemies, level design that wasn't just a single line. Most of the big games today try to be movies, to give the player a cinematic experience, and to not offer any challenge but be accessible and easy to play through because the target audience hates losing.

I don't deny that there was shit back then, nor do I deny that there are good games nowadays. It's just that the general attitude of designers has changed. And, be honest, could you imagine any developer today releasing something innovative and different like Thief? Or something with a complex story like PS:T? Or even just an RPG with a setting that does something different, like Arcanum? Except for indies and maybe some studios in Eastern Europe, nobody would dare to do this, because none of the big publishers (and not even the medium-sized ones) would finance such a project because it'd be "too risky". There's just no willingness to take risks anymore in order to create a masterpiece, because profit is all that matters, and corporate bastards think that generic "familiar" games make more of a profit than different, unique ones.

 

[DaveO]

I think the argument can be easily won by pulling out every game you have and pointing out the release date. It's safe to say you'll have more titles released before 2000 than from 2000 to 2010.

 

[Serious_Business]

lol what? You're on rpgcodex, this rant isn't in the right place. I understand if you encounter people who have casual views on gaming in your bustling early-20s "I have nothing else to think about" social life, but this isn't ringing a bell here. Everyone is aware of this shit. Rpgs took the Hollywood route, same as music and movies. So what's your point? This kind of shit has been said for decades now ; sub-cultures that detatch themselves from the more accessible mainstream culture ; you'd be more profound if you'd attempt some kind of social commentary, but I assume this is too pretentious here, which is fine. But the lulzy part about video games is that nobody cares, because games aren't art. They are entertainment. They have no real value, at least they aren't perceived as such. Maybe games changed your life or something, but I don't give a shit, and no one else does either. No one will work hard and make sacrifice to create "deep games" like they would with proper art, because not only games are products that require intensive ressources, but also no one cares about making a product that comes down to crass escapism. There is no life message in video games, there is no perspective on reality, there is no philosophical statement. It's just entertainment. Entertainment does not require culture to grasp, it does not require efforts, it does not require investment ; entertainment is not born out of an aristocratic ideal, it's meant to entertain you - i.e. waste your time, give you a "reward" after work, etc. You are a little faggot in a rich country who doesn't have to work, that's nice, but stop crying, just find another hobby, like getting involved in politics or something. Your expectations are misplaced and confused

 

[7hm]

I don't deny that there was shit back then, nor do I deny that there are good games nowadays. It's just that the general attitude of designers has changed. And, be honest, could you imagine any developer today releasing something innovative and different like Thief? Or something with a complex story like PS:T? Or even just an RPG with a setting that does something different, like Arcanum? Except for indies and maybe some studios in Eastern Europe, nobody would dare to do this, because none of the big publishers (and not even the medium-sized ones) would finance such a project because it'd be "too risky". There's just no willingness to take risks anymore in order to create a masterpiece, because profit is all that matters, and corporate bastards think that generic "familiar" games make more of a profit than different, unique ones.

That has always been the case. Publishers were releasing doom map packs by the dozen, every second game was a clone, and sequels (and terrible expansions) were the easiest way to make a buck. None of this has changed (well, the map packs and expansions are now called DLC).

You're pointing out exceptional games. They were not the norm, far from it.

I would be hard-pressed to point out 3 games of that caliber released by AAA studios in the last several years, but I wouldn't be hard-pressed to point out games that are good for what they are, similar to the games you first listed.

If all you play is AAA games, you don't have any right to complain about gaming in general, because right now the innovation is happening in the casual game / social game / and indie game sections of the industry. It's not a decline, it's a shift.

Sucks for big budget RPGs though.

 

[JarlFrank]

right now the innovation is happening in the casual game / social game / and indie game sections of the industry. It's not a decline, it's a shift.

Too bad casual games and social games (you mean shit like facebook apps, right?) aren't even close to what gaming used to be in the 90s.

typically awesome rant

Your posts are true bros, SB. I disagree with the potential of games being art though. They do have it. It's entirely possible to make a PC game that is art. The attitude towards them is kinda like the attitude people had towards novels once they were the new shit. Novels are just pure escapism, they're not art, the real art is in dramas and other serious shit, novels are just popamole.

PC games can be art, I'm pretty convinced by that. This won't happen as long as there's this shitty commercialism going on with sales being the only thing that counts, though. In the end all we can say is that things would be different if Germany had won WW2 or, even better, WW1, but maybe then we'd just get the same Call of Duty clones only that you're playing for the other side.

 

[Metro]

Yes, the main differences from then and now are variety, depth, and creativity. Now games are pretty much developed to be clones of one another. However, part of me like this direction because it obviates the need to buy AAA titles right away for $60 and makes my dollar go farther buying $10-$20 indie games that still tend to have the creativity and variety of the past.

While there are some big budget titles I'm looking forward to in 2011 there isn't anything I'm absolutely dying to play. Funny enough I'm starting to get pissed that Dungeon Defenders, a $10 indie game hybrid of tower defense and ARPG, keeps getting delayed -- I'm more interested in playing that than any AAA title. I'm also fortunate in that there is a gap of old games I can go back to in the late 90's/early 00's because I never played being too busy with college/law school.

 

[RK47]

Brings up a good point, but Crysis did remove the 'maps are corridors' complaints.

 

[MetalCraze]

In Crysis maps are corridors, they are just wider

 

[Black Bart Charley]

Op is born in 1990. Op is a moron.
They were cloning left and right from the get go of gaming.
Go on Mobygames and make a statistic for the years 85-90 and 2005-2010. Lets see how much diversity there is now and then. Otherwise, shut your dumb, empty mouth and fuck off to your pathetic shit of a blog.

As for complexity, Crawford said it in 92 better than this faggot will ever manage. Breadth won. And its not like depth was a good thing. Games that have a sufficient depth are broken balance and ai wise. Always were, always will be, but storyfags that lick up the shitstains of a game like Morronwind never learn.

 

[JarlFrank]

Op is born in 1990. Op is a moron.

I was born before 1990, but...

Joined: 13 Jun 2010

...the real newfag is you. GTFO

Also, what the hell man. Balance isn't the holy grail of game design, and basically you claim that it's impossible to properly balance a deep and complex game. Also, you do know that AI capabilities have increased, right? If only any developer would actually spend some time on developing a proper AI, it'd be capable of posing a challenge even in the most complex kind of game.

Obviously, you never played a wargame.

 

[sser]

The standards of the community have been lowered.

If Daikatana were released in today's gaming atmosphere it would get GOTY.