679ea4ced9527
Forgotten Password
Sign up

Post Reply

Your name:
Subject:
Message Icon:
Verification:
This box must be left blank:

Look at you, hacker: a ____ creature of meat and bone!  (Fill in the missing word):

Shortcuts: Alt+s to submit/post; Alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: sarge945
« on: 30. January 2025, 03:38:12 »

Quote by icemann:
I can think of several games and genres that fit that description from the past, and yet I still had an absolute ball with them. MYST as you mention (good atmosphere and the cryptic FMVs in the books add to the charm IMO), Dragons Lair from arcades in the 80's, FMV games have this in spades. Some point and click adventures too. For me those factors don't determine a games worth, its the overall sum of all the parts put together that matter.

Hell I think some text adventure games are fun (much in the same that game books are), for the imagination they inspire.

Older adventure games usually aren't filled with "non-gameplay gameplay", an overly huge amount of cutscenes (a lot of it is usually in-game with dialog choices, etc), and still have their fair share of major problems (didn't pick up the useless broken plank of wood in the second room of the game? Now you're fucked, 4 hours later).

I mentioned Myst specifically because I tried playing it recently and....it has not aged well.

As much as I don't generally like old adventure games on the whole, none of them have ever put me in a room where I have to listen to an NPC talk for 4 minutes while popups tell me how to "input the code on the computer" or whatever fake nonesense passes for gameplay in those kinds of segments.
Posted by: icemann
« on: 30. January 2025, 02:25:46 »

I remember reading the Sim City manual a lot. Thats how it should be. Want to learn how to play? Go read the manual, and find little additional story tidbits along the way. Don't force me through tutorials. Treats gamers like idiots.

However, if its skippable then no worries.
Posted by: Join2
« on: 29. January 2025, 18:41:16 »

Gotta read the manual with many old games. That's how badass they were, they came with an instruction manual. And sometimes 200+ page strategy guides if you cared to fork over some extra cash (not me).
I used to read over the huge Final Fantasy strategy guides my brother bought with complete fascination when I was a kid. Though in some ways that was cheating, too young to know better. So much hidden content though.
Posted by: icemann
« on: 29. January 2025, 15:32:18 »

I found a lot of older games, just dropped you straight in with very little if any info on how to play, or what you should do. The OG X-COM games spring to mind there. Whilst that led to a lot of "WTF is going on? What am I supposed to do?" moments, I far prefer that over modern day where everything either has a tutorial for it, or lots of information boxes to read through. Stops gameplay, and forces you to go through A LOT of unnecessary stuff. Especially if this is your 2nd or more time playing the game, where you already fully know what your doing.
Posted by: Join2
« on: 29. January 2025, 08:22:22 »

As much as I don't like classic adventure games, I respect that the gameplay they did offer all served solid purpose, contributed to the whole, required a little deduction, and did not waste time (well, exceptions apply and Myst is one of them but whatever). With modern slop the gameplay does the opposite; It damages the experience, pads it out, actively works against the story*, assumes you're a drooling retard, provides zero depth or engagement and so forth. I fully acknowledge the quality and integrity of typical old adventure games and their place in the medium, reluctantly. Modern games on the other hand are a disgrace.

*for an example of gameplay working against story: in the story, the antagonist is an all-powerful being, the power of a god or what have you. In gameplay however, he's a pushover. Hence, the elements of design are in conflict - you feel none of the tension and stakes you should be feeling. In old games, the gameplay worked in tandem with the story or other elements, and vice-versa, and as a result is better on some measurable level.

As for modern games, for me it's just anything from after the industry sold old hard in unison (2007), with its beginnings traceable to the early 2000s.  And excluding indie, which is a different case to be judged separately (and better on the whole, not hard because you literally can't get any worse than the core industry).
Posted by: icemann
« on: 29. January 2025, 08:04:04 »

Quote by sarge945:
"Modern Games" isn't really specifically talking about an "era" of games. At least not when I use the term. It's a term for a "style" of games, like "Modern Art". "Modern Games" is generally used as a prejorative/dismissive term for the growing industry trend to produce overly-cinematic games that are largely designed around having the player experience a story in a very specific, predesigned way through cutscenes, restrictive "non-gameplay" gameplay segments, and linear setpiece level design. If you enjoy these kinds of games, good for you, but generally they are looked down upon by a lot of gamers because they usually offer very little depth or gameplay complexity, and as a result, don't stay particularly engaging for very long.

I can think of several games and genres that fit that description from the past, and yet I still had an absolute ball with them. MYST as you mention (good atmosphere and the cryptic FMVs in the books add to the charm IMO), Dragons Lair from arcades in the 80's, FMV games have this in spades. Some point and click adventures too. For me those factors don't determine a games worth, its the overall sum of all the parts put together that matter.

Hell I think some text adventure games are fun (much in the same that game books are), for the imagination they inspire.
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 29. January 2025, 03:56:36 »

Quote by Valet2:
Define "modern games". The ones that were released this/last year? I've been hearing "modern games this, modern games that" along 30 years. And all those modern games are not modern anymore, some are even ultra-retro. And does the fact that we all play those "modern games of 2000-2010's" mean we finally agreed that modern games aren't bad, or they suddenly became old good games, which are ok to play?

"Modern Games" isn't really specifically talking about an "era" of games. At least not when I use the term. It's a term for a "style" of games, like "Modern Art". "Modern Games" is generally used as a prejorative/dismissive term for the growing industry trend to produce overly-cinematic games that are largely designed around having the player experience a story in a very specific, predesigned way through cutscenes, restrictive "non-gameplay" gameplay segments, and linear setpiece level design. If you enjoy these kinds of games, good for you, but generally they are looked down upon by a lot of gamers because they usually offer very little depth or gameplay complexity, and as a result, don't stay particularly engaging for very long.

These kinds of games have always been a thing (I remember Myst from when I was a child, which was kind of a big-budget AAA walking simulator, and it was everywhere. As awful as Myst is, at least it has a lot more interactivity than a lot of "Modern Games", but I would still call it overly-cinematic nonesense that offers little if any gameplay), and these games were being released pretty frequently over the 2000s and even before, but they have absolutely become more and more common in the last decade or so. They have almost become the "template" for AAA singleplayer games (from my experience, most singleplayer AAA games are either cinematic setpiece-driven drivel, or large open-world games with the same 3 minutes of gameplay peppered over a large, empty void to "traverse". But I digress, this isn't the "shit on modern open-world games" thread, but maybe it could be since I have a lot to say on these), and so even though it's more of a design, it's also reminiscent of a time period. Again, similar to "Modern Art".

Actually, come to think of it, Modern Games and Modern Art actually have a LOT in common - both are terrible, both are overrated and given way too much undeserved praise by self-obsessed idiots, and both make huge amounts of money based on false pretenses and fraud.
Posted by: Join2
« on: 28. January 2025, 00:36:12 »

Yeah, dragon's lair, etcetera. An absolute minority of old games, as opposed to the norm now.

Quote by Nameless Voice:
Surely "opinion" and "people that don't like" are the same thing?

Not all opinions - which are heavily based in comprehension, perception, experience and logic - are equal. Not everything is 100% subjective and valid as the internet likes to pretend. More than half the time an opinion has no basis at all e.g people talking shit about a game they've not even played. That's not to say it's the opposite and everything is objective, but there's many degrees of both involved.
More bluntly: I don't know about you but I don't value very much the opinion of an 8 year old child whom has only played fortnite. Nor do I value the opinion of people that don't actually like gameplay and play or develop more for the story with gameplay as a lazy afterthought. They're an infestation that holds my hobby hostage. In an ideal world that media wouldn't be lumped with video games so readily, because in a lot of cases that isn't what they are by definition - interactive stories or experiences is more appropriate.

I am welcoming of other opinions but they absolutely should have solid basis to be worth a damn. The importance of this has already been demonstrated earlier ("modern gaming is fine, there has been no downgrade! ...but I only play 4 games per year and only on PC").

Don't listen to me I am elitist, you enjoy your slop!
Posted by: tiphares4
« on: 27. January 2025, 23:04:55 »

Quote by Join2:
and the games almost play themselves

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mljq9-oI7iM



Posted by: Nameless Voice
« on: 27. January 2025, 17:23:51 »

Surely "opinion" and "people that don't like" are the same thing?
Posted by: Join2
« on: 27. January 2025, 15:24:17 »

There's opinion and then there's incompetency and people that don't actually like gameplay if it isn't a power trip, or are more into games for story, atmosphere or what have you. Challenge-averse. Sissy-wristed. Perhaps even a bit dumb sometimes. We call those casual gamers. They bitched and whined until gameplay was no more and the games almost play themselves or put up zero resistance and mental test. And here we are today, where I can play literally nothing except indie games.
Posted by: Nameless Voice
« on: 27. January 2025, 11:26:13 »

My point was more that there were elements of games that people complained about a lot back then too, they were just different things.

And you immediately saying you loved most of the list of things a lot of people complained about clearly points out how much a lot of this is about personal tastes rather than anything objective.

Just for the record, I don't actually mind jumping in first-person games, it's just something I've seen a lot of people complain about, to the extent that it doesn't feature much in modern games.


... Hexen really is an example of pretty much all of those complaints in one game, isn't it?
Posted by: Join2
« on: 27. January 2025, 10:07:10 »

Quote by Nameless Voice:
A lot of games had poor level design, confusing maze-like levels, excessive jumping, awkward controls, excessive bugs and jank, unintuitive gameplay, moon-logic puzzles, bizarre final levels, and so on.

Level design in the 90s was peak. Maze-like levels is fun, legitimate game design. Sounds like you don't enjoy navigation challenge.  a few games took it too far e.g Marathon & Hexen, but I don't consider either of those particularly good games. But hey, I love Turok, and that game has absolutely mindfuck level design. Certainly not what I'd call peak level design, but I appreciate the hardcore orienteering test.
Ditto for "excessive jumping" sounding like something you don't get. That's platforming of course, and it's great. Without platforming we can't have true 3D level design (verticality/the Z axis) in a lot of cases.  And without jumping we can't say have elements of aerial combat in a FPS also, among other things. There is not a single 90s FPS I consider to have excessive platforming. If anything there's not enough of it! The worst offender is Half-Life and not because of the quantity, but rather the mechanics (annoying inertia/slippery feet, zero air control, quite  a big delay to transition to crouch-state which is relevant for crouch-jumping).
Excessive bugs, UI issues and overall jank...in janky, buggy games sure. Interestingly enough mostly a problem in PC games lol. 90s console games had an undeniable higher standard of finish, on average. Definitely some standouts but it wasn't a big deal, and you get games with bad UI still to date, even if on average it's surely a bit better overall.
Moon-logic puzzles? Where? Adventure games sure, but they were never really about quality gameplay anyway, and is one of few genres I actively shun. What's a problematic puzzle in System Shock 1 or 2? There isn't any. Nor is there in so many others worthy of a mention. I would also readily take puzzle elements that have a chance of maybe 1 puzzle in the game being absurd as opposed to Skyrim kindergarten-level problem-solving/picture matching with no higher standard than that across the entire game.
Controls...sure things were less standardized and weren't quite figured out yet, but this is also a problem mostly exclusive to PC gaming...Jagged Alliance 2, System Shock, or games entirely driven by entering keyboard commands as suitable examples. Certainly painful stuff.

90s (and to a lesser extent early 00s) game design is legendary...we will never get back to those days of glory, but you have to have broader prospects and tastes to see it it seems.
Posted by: Nameless Voice
« on: 26. January 2025, 19:43:52 »

There's a lot of trends in recent years that I don't like, things like microtransactions and over-reliance on quest marker and so on.

Often if the game is good otherwise, I can ignore those things and enjoy the other parts.

But I was thinking, haven't games in each era always had things that we didn't like, and had to ignore to enjoy the games from that era?

A lot of older games had different problems.  Poor UX was a near-constant (not that UX tends to be great these days due to bad console ports.)
A lot of games had poor level design, confusing maze-like levels, excessive jumping, awkward controls, excessive bugs and jank, unintuitive gameplay, moon-logic puzzles, bizarre final levels, and so on.

We mostly ignored those things too, and enjoyed the goods bits.


Other thing that occurred to me is that AAA studios like we have now didn't really exist in earlier days, because the budgets and studio sizes hadn't got so massive yet.
The big studios of the late '90s would be considered AA these days at best.  And I feel that it's AA stuidos that are making the best higher-scope games these days.
Posted by: Join2
« on: 25. January 2025, 21:24:30 »

Dead space starts close to extremely linear, 90% linear lets say. Later, this only improves to around 70% linear. But that's OK, linear can be fine if the level design is regardless engaging and it isn't *too* linear. I'd say it really straddles the line, if it were any more linear it would be a problem. And if it were less linear, the game could be better. Nonetheless, the level design is overall acceptable, so you're good. There are zero gravity sections later in the game where it is at its most non-linear, because it is disorienting 6dof gameplay through small mazes and stuff, it's pretty great. If you're willing to stick with it does pay off, but just don't expect something as good as System Shock 2. Also dont expect the focus from fighting monsters in corridoors to change much. That is the core of the game, though it's well executed and varies somewhat in setup from room to room. There's other aspects between minor resource management, some puzzles, the zero-g sections, but blasting monsters in corridors is the absolute core. Thankfully it's not half-bad at that. Not amazing either, but overall they're fairly decent games. One of its most impressive aspects is how damn immersive it is, even though it's third person and fairly railroaded. You should get absorbed into the experience if you give it time.

Dead Space remake I heard mixed opinions. I heard it adds a little more openness to the level design, but I have no interest in playing it any time soon as I am not fond the remake fervor lately. Maybe in 10 years when it's 5 bucks.

Unreal is quite different to Half-Life. Definitely some similarities but it's more traditional FPS gameplay is in its favor. It starts quite like Half Life but has some different twists and turns, better combat despite some flaws (and the combat takes a while to get good too), and more open and interesting level design (from a gameplay perspective) from time to time. I am a Half-Life fan like everyone else, but it is a very rigid, scripted game. I personally prefer Unreal overall but I am influenced by many things - I played Half-life to death way back, and discovered Unreal a bit later, so therefore recency bias, as well the fact I made a pretty big mod for it that makes it even better, probably my favorite 90s FPS with it installed (8/10 goes to 9/10). Anyways once you get the Flak Cannon, ASMD, Razorjack etc going the combat is simply better than Half-Life and more akin to Quake + I prefer the level design for letting you tackle it from different angles as well as actually forcing you to navigate them and maintain your bearings, in addition to the joys of exploration instead of being railroaded.

Morrowind combat requires abandoning expectations set by reality, intuition and other games, just like Deus Ex did with its accuracy system. Morrowind combat is pretty cool, managing all the variables (level up multipliers, stamina, potion buffs, status effects) is what makes it fun. The early game is pretty damn grindy with it (the higher level you are, the more you hit until you eventually get 100% accuracy) and there is also some nuances to learn (keep stamina bar full for better odds to hit, or drink potions to temp buff accuracy) so I think the scaling of the accuracy system was a bit off, but damn if it didn't make for a pretty hardcore RPG experience and that shit gets me off...until the balance breaks anyway.

Anyway, hit me up any time for recommendations. I've played a lot of games across a wide variety of genres & platforms, and consider myself to have pretty high standards. Lots of amazing games I don't want getting lost from public consciousness to the sands of time.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 25. January 2025, 21:10:37 »

I would say the (good) old era ended with pixel shaders and consolification (the practice of doing just one cut down build of a game that could run on the popular consoles of that respective year, and then just recompiling it to run on a pc instead of doing a proper port).

not saying good games don't exist after 2001, but if you want a year that separates the old and the new, then 2001 would be a good choice. it's also the year when 3Dfx went under, so an end of an era on the hardware field as well.
Posted by: Valet2
« on: 25. January 2025, 20:12:26 »

Thanks, I'll start with Dead Space and Arx Fatalis then. After that I'll look for another game I missed worth playing.

What I disliked in Dead Space is its linearity and predictability. You've been told to turn some switch, there's a corridor, and two monsters would appear in front of you and one behind. After you turn that switch three more monsters would spawn, and on your way back — same pattern of jumpscares. It was like that along that hour that I tried to like this game. Really hope it's only in the beginning, and it won't be that boring and scripted later.

As for Alien, I really really loved the 1999's AvP, every time I replay some levels I feel the same fear. And Alien Isolation was probably the best game I've ever played. Not gonna replay, because it's a one-time experience only.

Morrowind was hard to play because of two things: you try to kill a damn leech and you miss 9 of 10 times (but visually you do direct hits), and tons and tons of texts right from the beginning is too much.

Unreal felt like Half-Life alpha.

---

Dead Space remake or original?
Posted by: Join2
« on: 25. January 2025, 19:45:55 »

I will make suggestions for alternatives in each case:

Dead Space 1 & 2 are fairly decent. Would probably make my top 100 but definitely not in the top 50 range. Both System Shock 2 and Resident Evil 4, which Dead Space is a merger of, are better. I would definitely say they're worth playing but aside from some aspects (for example, later zero-G sections) it's not going to take your breath away. They're close to greatness, but I would not encourage you to push through if you're not feeling it.

Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines is a tragic game. The setting, premise, atmosphere, concept, writing is all great, but the gameplay never came to fruition. The level design is based largely around realism with almost zero consideration for gameplay and therefore not very engaging. The combat is a mess. It's also generally unfinished, as the story goes with its development issues.
The designers clearly did not have gameplay as a priority (pretty common among RPG devs, honestly) and that's a real shame. It is not comparable to the likes of Looking Glass despite what some may claim, and it is very unfortunate. Instead of VTM:B, I would recommend 90s/early 2000s Looking Glass-born FP/RPGs as well as Fallout: New Vegas.

Aliens vs Predator (2010) is mediocre. Who told you this was legendary? If I would recommend any Alien or predator game, it would be Alien Trilogy (1995), but only behind about 30 or 40 other FPS first. There's no legendary, or even great Alien game (disclaimer: not played the recent Dark Descent, which is in my wishlist).
So what horror FPS would I recommend? You can't go wrong with Blood (1997) and Quake for a horror FPS with a lighter tone and more action focus.
Dying Light is also pretty great for a modern game, though very light on the FPS part.
Doom 64 is fantastic, and was ported to PC in recent years. Doom 3 if instead of graphics innovation, the focus was on simply being a good game.
Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth is a cool though flawed Horror FPS Action-Adventure Survival Horror (hard to put a label on it). It's not the best thing ever but it is a gripping, impressive game with mature tone, and doesn't treat the player like a retard.

Morrowind has the potential to be one the greatest RPGs ever made...with at least three more years in development. Preferably more.
I love the game, it's the best Elder Scrolls, but I've never completed it, because the devs never completed it. It's a broken, unbalanced mess that even 100 gameplay mods cant save. Arx Fatalis, which Morrowind completely overshadowed, is the better game (though flawed itself), and if you like games like System Shock 2 and Ultima Underworld, well why haven't you already played it? It falls short of true legend status but damn does it come close.

Unreal is a solid 8/10. It's quite rough in areas though, and takes a while to pick up the pace. It wouldn't be my first pick for FPS. Unless a certain mod was installed (mine).  If I could recommend only three FPS, they would be Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, and...Everspace if 6dof FPS with roguelite elements counts.

Diablo (1-2)...are autistic clickfests. I appreciate the build diversity potential but the core gameplay is pretty crap, click click click and also with level design being something obvious to point to as there isn't much to speak of (except it's quite pretty, but that isn't level design). What would I recommend instead...anything I recommend is going to be quite a lot different here, as clickers are lame.

Might come back to this later.

Mass Effect and Doom 3 were in this list, but you already told... I've forced myself to complete almost all Bioshocks which were... well, crap. Dishonored was boring as hell. Fallout 3 and 4 are boring too.

Agree with all that, though I adore New Vegas, and think Fallout 3 and 4 aren't the worst thing in the world like some will claim, they're just not great.

You are missing endless amounts of gems , and have been listening to the wrong people. The mainstream has a habit of parading  around the most braindead crap as the best games. It's not uncommon to see recommendations for "all-time classics" with zero substance where there is a far superior version available, with System Shock 2 > Bioshock being one such example you can relate to. It's better in literally every way that counts.

Posted by: Valet2
« on: 25. January 2025, 18:27:38 »

Quote by Join2:
I honestly have no idea how you could not notice this trend, as gameplay was fucking awesome in the golden years generally-speaking.

I just ignore games I'm not interested into.

Okay, looks like your advice will be preferrable. I tried to play several games that are constantly called legendary, but every time I sit and try to force myself to play it I start spitting up and remove it with anger. I've even made a list of them. Are they good and worth playing (maybe I haven't reached the point where the game would shine in its beauty)? They are:

Dead Space (all of them)
Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines
Sonic Adventure (both)
Aliens vs Predator (2010)
Morrowind
Gothic 2
Unreal (the first one)
No one lives forever (both)
Thief 1-2-3 (droped on third level)
Diablo (1-2)

Mass Effect and Doom 3 were in this list, but you already told... I've forced myself to complete almost all Bioshocks which were... well, crap. Dishonored was boring as hell. Fallout 3 and 4 are boring too. But there were games I refused to play for decades, and completed them only recently, and they were fine, good or even amazing (AvP2, Commandos 1, Tiberian Sun, Blade Runner, The Thing, Quake 2 with add-ons in co-op). Maybe I'm missing a gem.
Posted by: Join2
« on: 25. January 2025, 16:59:32 »

"Define "modern games"."

The first measurably bad year following the golden years (late 90s especially) was 2003. Many mediocre releases, almost nothing of legendary status, and tons of bad behaviors established. The Sims normalizing 100 micro-expansion packs, as well as the GBA mainly just existing as the port machine (this is not remotely accurate, but the problem is the majority of the best games on it were ports of 90s games. Even Doom was on it), Creepy gimmicks like the Eyetoy. Multiplatform releases becoming the new normal. Shitty military shooters & movie tie-ins galore. Devs noticeably chasing realism and graphics above all such as the upcoming Doom 3 (or again, all those many military shooters). Xbox's continued undeserved existence. Terrible sequels such as Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness, Deus Ex 2, Unreal 2, Devil May Cry 2.
More than anything, there just wasn't many genuinely great games released in 2003, across all platforms. The golden age was clearly over.

Overall, despite all the above, gaming was a marked downgrade but still semi-respectable with many worthwhile games, up until around 2007. Here it was like a switch was flicked. Everything was suddenly made for bottom of the barrel players, those kids in school that would kick and scream when they lost (which was always), or abuse cheats. Or would ask their mother to complete the level for them (saw an image post on reddit a couple days ago of boys in the 90s doing exactly this lol. Standard reddit behavior). Generic, unengaging, removed actual player involvement to the point they can barely be considered games.  PC developers, having been selling out their principles for much of the decade were now in full swing with trash like Bioshock, Gears of War, Mass Effect and Oblivion. Unfortunately, console developers had now followed suit with the same intensity, with utter garbage that plays itself like Uncharted and Assassin's Creed, to name a few. Mobile gaming became a thing and many wanted to chase that cash cow. Marketing and art department budgets far overinflated the actual game part for every game, Microtransactions and achievements (even these are bad - designed to manipulate the mentally weak into poor purchasing habits and to stick with the platform). Game genres died off, deemed unprofitable. Gameplay elements considered too hardcore were stripped, which was...most of it. Dev studios canned left and right or bought out and heavily controlled by large publishers with dollar signs in their eyes.
Music composition died here too. In the 90s, video games featured metal, drum n bass, jazz; it encompassed music in its entirety, where it was fitting to do so. Now, everything is heavily subdued so as to not offend any particular tastes and to appeal to the broadest possible audience, and that's been the overall approach to development ever since the terrible 2000s. Appeal to the broadest possible audience, therefore you get the shallowest piece of shit possible. We've been saying this for decades indeed. I could live with most of this if the gameplay didn't go from 100% badass to completely worthless and braindead, I honestly have no idea how you could not notice this trend, as gameplay was fucking awesome in the golden years generally-speaking. Though it does depend on what genres and platforms you play to an extent e.g P&C adventure games were one exception when it comes to the gameplay excellence of the 90s, not that it was bad gameplay but it certainly wasn't the focus of the developers. Also the N64 was a very underwhelming platform compared to others in the late 90s, though still had some heart.

Now it's to the point where devs are getting kids addicted to gambling playing the same game over and over frothing at the mouth for content updates or a good roll from a lootbox, and only 8 core industry games are releasing per year lol, everything else is indie, with the occasional AA. Indie has literally taken over the shit show core industry in the hearts and minds of many gamers...which amazes me because in 2007 and beyond they'd eat any slop...finally they had enough. Nope that's not it, it's simply the fact that there is not enough output from the core, so gamers look for shiny toys elsewhere.
Posted by: Join2
« on: 25. January 2025, 15:40:01 »

I laughed hard. Shame on me! Then I remembered you were German. Made it more understandable.
Shame on your bloodline more like 🤣

Quote by Valet2:
Thanks for your opinion, Join2 (or EvGenius), I'll take that into account.

As for evaluation of my ignorance and sad childhood, I'd keep that to myself, refusing to compete to your or someone else's standards.

Very good 👍

I am genuinely sad for you. Missing the boat to old school game design wonderland. No sarcasm here.

I won't stand by when someone denies reality in any case. The difference is like night and day.
Posted by: icemann
« on: 25. January 2025, 09:44:28 »

Quote by Join2:
Bet you deny the holocaust happened too.

That is a horrible thing to say mate. You should hang your head in shame for even uttering those words. Absolutely disgusting.
Posted by: Valet2
« on: 25. January 2025, 09:38:53 »

Thanks for your opinion, Join2 (or EvGenius), I'll take that into account.

As for evaluation of my ignorance and sad childhood, I'd keep that to myself, refusing to compete to your or someone else's standards.
Posted by: Join2
« on: 25. January 2025, 06:18:25 »

Bet you deny the holocaust happened too.  Entire gameplay elements are outright eliminated in 99% of games that were once standard added layers, such as navigation challenge - objective markers and map markers for every little thing ended that. You're only revealing your ignorance of the great heights in which game design fell. Also, you're to my knowledge strictly a PC-only player, so therefore entirely ignorant of over 50% of gaming history. Nice opinion dude. Though even then, PC gaming clearly fell from grace too, only indie and mods keeps it great. The problem with that is both are extremely limited by budget in what can be achieved...but that's fine. If not for indie and mods I'd be done with gaming. It's not the broad game design genius it once was.

4 games per year in the late 90s? That's a sad fate as a gamer.
Posted by: Valet2
« on: 24. January 2025, 09:11:29 »

I feel like I have something to add.

Define "modern games". The ones that were released this/last year? I've been hearing "modern games this, modern games that" along 30 years. And all those modern games are not modern anymore, some are even ultra-retro. And does the fact that we all play those "modern games of 2000-2010's" mean we finally agreed that modern games aren't bad, or they suddenly became old good games, which are ok to play?

Secondly, there is a big phenomen called a "duck syndrome" which we for some reason tend to ignore. The things (games, movies, music) which made a huge impact in our youth remain the best for us for the rest of our life. That's totally normal. There's nothing wrong in us re-playing the same games over and over again. There's nothing to blame for. For the people born in 2000's the games they've been playing during their childhood are the best and classic for them. I agree that I feel somehow awkwardly when I read "Fallout 3 is the best game ever, it reminds me of my school days", while for me this game came out like yesterday. But that's okay!

What really bothers me is when people try to persuade others that the golden era of games is over, nothing good ever comes out. There were bad games back then, but we don't remember them because they have been filtered out. Just open a game magazine of 90-s and you will be amazed how many games you totally forgot or even didn't know about came out back then! There is pretty same ratio between good and bad games nowadays.

There's more. I started playing in 1996. Every year it gives about 4 games I'd really like to play. But usually I don't have time, energy or interest, therefore I simply buy them so they don't disappear, and maybe in ten years I feel like it's finally time to complete The Thing (2002). So now I have about 50 games that I REALLY have to play (and they all were "modern" at the release, remember!). It's a much bigger part of my game library than those 4 games to be released in 2025. Of course the bigger chance I'll choose something from my old shelf. In this case all those steam charts won't show a thing.


(I didn't read the whole conversation though)
Posted by: Join2
« on: 24. January 2025, 07:38:00 »

They're terrible, braindead games lol. Too much automation and casualization. Jumping  = partially automated + no fall damage. Combat = dead simple, unengaging. Don't even need to orient your character and strikes. Arial takedowns = win button. No timing or aiming involved. Hookshot? You don't aim that, just press the button and the game chooses for you. Game has trademark modern game x-ray vision to let you see everything of importance through walls, and not even remotely balanced like it was in Deus Ex/Metal Gear Solid (Radar) etc. One of these things I can let slide, but everything together the game is borderline playing itself....but that's standard for AAA games of the past 20 years.

If you play a 3D brawler, you play real games, classics like Ninja Gaiden (2004) or Devil May Cry (2001), among others.

Posted by: sarge945
« on: 14. January 2025, 03:17:19 »

I could never get into the batman games. I'm not really into brawlers in the first place, but even if I was, they seemed to lack something important which I couldn't quite put my finger on. The games just felt...off to me.

Mad Max had the same problem.
Posted by: JDoran
« on: 12. January 2025, 22:36:39 »

I'm currently replaying Batman: Arkham Origins, a superb game, my second favourite of the four main Arkham games. I mention it because it's a very good example of another of the problems with modern gaming (even though this game is more than a decade old) - unfixed bugs. It's already crashed several times for me, plus a couple of the much less serious bugs, such as an enemy getting stuck a wall or other object (not a real problem, as you can just repeatedly Batterang him until he loses consciousness) or the Silent Takedown prompt not appearing (again, not a big problem, you just move away then re-approach the enemy to get the prompt.

*Thankfully*, by far the game's biggest bug, where the save-file becomes corrupted and unfixable, hasn't shown up, and I think it's been a few years since it last did.

It's by far the most bugged game that I replay, but it's one of my favourite games ever, so I very begrudgingly put up with the bugs , which the makers never saw fit to patch out.




"On the off chance that you programmed this game, I'm gonna bat-punch your teeth out"
Posted by: notaavatar
« on: 12. January 2025, 19:44:08 »

Huge companies always do this, you get your information from consumer studies. If you work in such a place, sometimes you have the opportunity to participate. Let's just say the consumer is considered stu-pid.

Like, if you work for a place that say develops things that are sold in a grocery store, or over the counter. When the interview people talk to the engineers and such, its practically like the Asgard and Ancients showed up after spending a month dealing with pre neolithics.

Nothing shows you corporate like discussions about product packaging For instance that people eating small parts is actually a priority major concern for a multinational umbrella corporation, They are spending billions for fixing issues that someone smart like you might stumble upon, if you drank a pint of pure moonshine after getting a concussion.
Posted by: vurt
« on: 01. January 2025, 00:51:45 »

If there's a bane of modern gaming, it's not shitty games, it is that you're working for the company your buying games from, as a beta tester.  This is actually getting a bit worse.

2024 was great for indies. People who say its just "artsy games", they're pretty clueless and i don't think they're that interested in indies at all, or even follow it that well.

One of my favorite reviewers gave all the GOTY awards of 2024 to indies apart from one (the WH shooter). Not one of them could be called "artsy".

I'm looking forward to e.g Kingdom Come 2. Do i think it will be bug free, hell no... i will likely wait a year. Stalker 2, same deal. It's not a shitty game, it's a buggy game with some unfinished parts.
Posted by: Nameless Voice
« on: 31. December 2024, 20:27:23 »

That's all just moving the goalposts.

The points that people were making at the start of this thread about AAA games was that they're often made by committee, with a design that tries to play it safe and appeal to everyone, and so ends up appealing to no-one very much.

But those particular problems are only true for the really high-budget AAA games.  Sure, other brackets have their own problems, but they're different problems.

But whatever.  People have been announcing the end of gaming as we known it for years, decades even, and yet it's never true and great games still keep getting made every year.

Of course, it's still only a small number of great games, but when was it not?  Was there ever a year where every single game that came out was great?  Of course not.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 30. December 2024, 11:09:29 »

Quote by vurt:
What genres do you people enjoy?
ShockEd
Posted by: vurt
« on: 30. December 2024, 07:20:31 »

I agree, the distinction isn't too interesting, instead just care about playing good games, avoid shitty games.
 
Lost cause? I don't see it. There's more releases than ever, thus way more shit. We can go back as far as to the C64 era, it was the same, most of the games were shit, i remember going through tape after tape, just garbage, and then the very occasional gem.

What genres do you people enjoy? Just Thief and SS-like games? Then sure, it must be pretty crappy. I enjoy a ton of various genres, there's a lot to enjoy and to look forward to.
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 30. December 2024, 06:55:10 »

I'm saying that indie games, on the whole, are as much of a lost cause as AAA games are. Saying "just don't play the bad ones" doesn't actually answer that point at all.

Otherwise I can do this
"Hey, AAA games are kind of shitty, have you noticed??"
"JUST DON'T PLAY THE BAD ONES LOL"

And suddenly this whole thread disappears in a puff of logic.

This entire thread is basically a giant rant about how shitty AAA gaming has become, with multiple people specifically singling out AAA gaming as opposed to indie gaming, which is where the "innovation is"

My point is that they are both equally shit and the distinction is meaningless, so we should stop trying to separate them. Arguing that "indie games are still good" is pure copium.

The ""best"" indie game of 2024 literally plays itself. What a joke.

Your only hope is old games.
Posted by: vurt
« on: 30. December 2024, 06:23:05 »

I also don't think it's strange that 15% is for 2024 games. I mean it's 2024 vs every other year, that's quite something to compete with...  On the whole i mostly play Rimworld. Likely in 2025-2026 i have a few favorites from 2024 and those games are instead the most played.
Posted by: vurt
« on: 30. December 2024, 06:09:19 »

..and the point is exactly? all you're saying is that there's quite a few garbage indies coming out, i totally agree, but i also don't care, how does it matter. It would be nice if the ratio was something like 90% good games, but it's never been the case. We have more games than ever, thus more shit than ever, there's an immense selection of good games, so many that i have to be very selective of what to play. My backlog is just growing.
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 30. December 2024, 06:05:21 »

Way to miss the point entirely...
Posted by: vurt
« on: 30. December 2024, 04:54:46 »

2024 was incredible for games, bought way more games than in 10'ish years i think. 

Stalker 2, Rogue Trader , Elden Ring: Shadow of the Erdtree,ready or not(well, it was Dec 2023), Drova, shadow of doubt.. some cool VR games like Arkham Shadow.. The Indy game seems decent, gonna grab on a sale though.

...and indie games, of course there will be tons and tons of garbage, and who cares`? why would you buy or play them, you don't so there's really no issue as i see it.  I read reviews, sometimes i buy and play for 2h, refund if i didn't agree with the reviews. 
Mobile games is way worse and i could not care less. As for Artsy indies, not common, at least its not something i run into frequently.
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 30. December 2024, 00:46:42 »

Controversial opinion time:

Modern indie games are just as shitty as modern AAA, just in different ways.

People keep telling me that "AA and indie are still good, they are where the innovation is!!" And then I look at the indie scene and all I see is ""artsy"" story games with no gameplay, modern spiritual successors to old games (usually worse versions), the same empty survival sandbox game over and over again, and hugely overproduced ""indie"" platformers made by large companies that basically have "indie style" games down to a business.

Sure, there's some good stuff that comes out. But just look at the resurgence of indie boomer shooters for an example. A few good ones (Dusk, Selaco, etc) and a bunch of really mediocre or bad ones.

Indie games also suck. I hate how people see them as the "savior of the modern industry" when so many of them are unplayable garbage.
Posted by: icemann
« on: 29. December 2024, 17:28:14 »

Quote by JDoran:
Some very good points are raised in this thread, and I'd like to add that the availability of mods also effects how older games are more often played than newer games, because as time goes on, less and less new games are mod-able, so fewer and fewer new games will benefit from years and years of extended playability due to fan-made mods.

Which in turn increases how long one sticks with each game, before moving onto the next. Some of the western RPGs even allow saved characters from the main game (or from custom player made ones) to be imported into others (eg Neverwinter Nights, Shadowrun Returns etc), which incentives sticking with them.

And some mod scenes refuse to ever die (eg OG Doom community) and keep pumping out fantastic mods. I continue to be amazed of the stuff coming out. Plus their damn fun.
Posted by: JhonnyG
« on: 29. December 2024, 17:26:22 »

Maybe I have just descended into an old grumpy drunk. But whenever I look at a new games, they simply lack innovation. Like yeah, the graphic might be a tad better, but the core gameplay mechanics are inferior to the 20 year old titles that I already own and love. So why even invest in a knock-off of something with less replayability than what I already have.. This tend to make me replay classic games instead of investing in new ones. Especially as I can't be bothered with online stores, third party launchers and multiplayer games anymore.

Not to mention the bane of poorly optimized dx12 and unreal5 titles flooding the market. If it's not a blurry mess, then it'll try to melt your hardware into a slab of scrap while requiring ai upscaling to perform at anything higher than 1080p. It's honestly ridiculous how something like SS2 with a few community mods ace most modern games in graphic fidelity.

Dunno where the hell I'm going with this rant. Maybe it's just that I ain't surprised nobody is really excited about new releases anymore. And would rather spend their time replaying classic or older games. Instead of buying into quadruple A mainstream garbage or early access money grabs...
Posted by: fox
« on: 29. December 2024, 15:10:58 »

Unfortunately "voting with your wallet" is still our best shot at influencing the course of this industry so I think it's still necessary to throw some money at the games that we feel should prevail. Pre-ordering will always be naive, same with crowd-funding but it is probably smarter buying such a game at a price near retail, when/if the release bugs have been mostly ironed out and the game seems worth it by then, instead of putting it on hold for months/years and getting it at a huge discount. Thinking about games like Stalker 2, to state a current example.
Posted by: Nameless Voice
« on: 29. December 2024, 12:13:24 »

Those issues are all not with modern gaming, but only with modern AAA gaming.
The best games have been in the smaller spaces, from indie to AA, for a long time.  That's where the innovation is.

Though, for me, the reason I barely play any games in the year they're released is more that I have such a big backlog to get through already that it seems foolish to buy anything new.  I still do it occasionally if something really catches my eye, but I'll often wait for a year or two before buying interesting games simply because I have other things queued up first.
Posted by: fox
« on: 28. December 2024, 09:18:44 »

Many of the same underlying issues as with the movie industry, really. Including the fact that the big budgets and teams also attracted the same type of investors and management with similar business practices, decreased individual sense of responsibility and self-efficacy, drastically increased financial fall height leading to increased creative/thematic risk aversion, etc..
Posted by: Join2
« on: 28. December 2024, 05:18:50 »

Quote by sarge945:
This is a false economy.

Games are expensive to make because there's a high degree of managerial staff that really shouldn't be there. This is an issue in many industries.

That's a problem for sure, but the obscene cost to make high profile games these days all stems from modern graphics first and foremost. 90% of me wishes we never moved past 1990s engine capabilities, despite that being limiting to the full potential of game design. Because really, what truly limits game design is the obscene costs to make them, twentyfold the average budget of the 90s.
Posted by: JDoran
« on: 27. December 2024, 22:12:03 »

Some very good points are raised in this thread, and I'd like to add that the availability of mods also effects how older games are more often played than newer games, because as time goes on, less and less new games are mod-able, so fewer and fewer new games will benefit from years and years of extended playability due to fan-made mods.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 26. December 2024, 23:50:39 »

so they will fail. and who gives a damn? there is always someone in the garage working on the next good thing, and even if not, there is still tons of great old stuff that already exist out there.

did the math, and I literally don't have enough sand in the hourglass left to go through all of it, so I couldn't care less if the big industries are to implode tomorrow.
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 26. December 2024, 23:33:00 »

Quote by notaavatar:
I am really hoping AI assistants help game designers get around the expensive crap we don't  care too much about like graphics and focus on gameplay with a smaller team that actually likes games...

I think the problem is that the development cost is too high. I don't think they will be able to shake the 'leadership cost' that everyone wants to go after

This is a false economy.

Games are expensive to make because there's a high degree of managerial staff that really shouldn't be there. This is an issue in many industries.
Posted by: notaavatar
« on: 26. December 2024, 15:55:29 »

I am really hoping AI assistants help game designers get around the expensive crap we don't  care too much about like graphics and focus on gameplay with a smaller team that actually likes games...

I think the problem is that the development cost is too high. I don't think they will be able to shake the 'leadership cost' that everyone wants to go after.

I think because the teams are so big now, because they need to handle all the issues, the leader that made great games (like Warren Spector) needs too many co-leaders and assistants and the vision he had is being diluted and there is conflicts of interests and some how people that work on some hard to implement (but ultimately trivial) details are getting "into" projects. It feels like we are getting camels. The engineering statement, that holds true for even the design of a single part, is "a horse designed by committee becomes a camel". I think its one of the rare cases where the simpsons got it wrong, where they show homer "fucked up" a car design when he took over the design board. I think its the opposite. I am hoping AI tools empower programmers enough that they can accomplish enhanced projects with teams that are substantially smaller and more coordinated with a unitary vision. Even if they have very strict control in corporate managment terms, the energy of this 'brain' that is actually responsible for the success o the operation is used to perform management crap like communicating to large groups under them, and they are effectively isolated from the product (lack of fast feedback needed to govern design). AI seems like it could be used to get rid of this problem.
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 26. December 2024, 02:43:25 »

I definitely don't appreciate how much modern games want to waste your time on stupid collectibles or 50 hours of "content" doing stupid side quests and such
Contact SMF 2.0.19 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines | Terms and Policies
FEEP
679ea4cedb832