Only 15% of all Steam users' time was spent playing games released in 2024

[679e88923c843sarge945]

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.

[679e88923cb8cicemann]

"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.

[679e88923cdd4Join2]

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).

[679e88923cf3bicemann]

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.

[679e88923d0f4Join2]

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.

[679e88923d227icemann]

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.

[679e88923d668sarge945]

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.