How come old games are so much better than new ones
I feel like the need for 3d ruined a lot of genres. Hand drawn graphics never age.
>My grandmother says the same thing about music from the fifties.
She's right tho
This is now a skeleton thread.
She's right. It's got to do with the major motivation behind your work. At the beginning of everything, money isn't the number 1 priority and people like what they do and care for their products. As shit gets popular, money becomes the priority. This happened with videogames and with music alike.
There are people
who actually used
> My grandmother says the same thing about music from the fifties
The 50s had Little Richard. That's enough.
I know. Why am I still investing time into this hobby? It's long since fallen from grace.
>tfw can't pass Modron Maze
>even tried to make a hand-drawn map of it but fucked up numerous times
>can't just put it behind me and skip content
Modron Maze is the get gud area
because quite often, new games are made to pander and with money making purposes in mind.
old games were made largely by small teams of highly passionate nerds who weren't interested in making tons of money, just making something awesome.
I don't claim there wasn't such effect, but I'd argue it's an illusion for the most part.
Firstly, we used to be much less experienced before, now we HAVE played all the classics so the game has to compare favourably against the very best in every regard rather than the comparatively small pool of games before. Secondly, mainstream market in its current form didn't exist 10+a ago so it's unfair to compare core/enthusiast games of old to modern mainstream garbage (a game made to be palatable to everyone almost loses everything of worth because someone might find those elements challenging, offensive, difficult to approach or whatever). And finally, if I think of games that I'd consider worth playing right now, they are quite evenly distributed (starting from NetHack originally released in 1987). At least when I think of "recent" games, I think of the last few years while I tend to clump up older games from much longer span of time together.
When it comes to the reason of the actual reduction in quality, I'd say it's much smaller proportion of mid-budget games: There's plenty of enthusiast games nowadays but they tend to be plagued by low production value (leading to clunkiness and other such problems), mainstream games are almost unable to fully appeal to anyone's given taste due to reasons described above. The middle-ground that has both polish and appeal to core audiences has diminished greatly.
Part of what makes a game fun is challenge - that's different from simply being hard because challenges are fun and can be overcome with work and skill, whereas a hard game is just difficult and frustrating.
New games are easier and don't present as much of a challenge. Therefore, the game is less fun, and developers usually seem to skim on the story we now expect most games to have, so we can't even get any enjoyment out of that.
Because modern games are more graphically demanding.
Back then the epitome of graphics were such that you would need maybe one dedicated artist to make your textures if even that much. The rest of the focus being on writers writing a good story and programmers doing a good job.
Nowadays you still have programmers and artists, but writers seemed to have been given paycut or whatever.
Finally started my backlog and begun the DMC HD collection, i really like the atmosphere in the first part so far.
Thank, mr kamya.
it's the natural course of action whenever something gets too popular for its own good. Hopefully it will rebound one day.
Because now consumers have too large a part in deciding how games are made, directly or indirectly.
Older games were made without a lot of input from the players or potential players, but newer games are usually tailor made for a certain fanbase, or are made to try and take advantage of a an appeal for a certain thing that most games lack. That's why you've seen so many games recently that are sandbox games with a lot of supposed choice - most people don't like linear games and want to have a lot of freedom, so that's what developers try to make. People are tired of CoD, but generally want a game that is exactly the same but not CoD, so developers try to cash in on that desire.
Now we have kickstarters, so people can directly support what games or features they want over the others, and get rewarded for their support.
>let's scream "NOSTALGIA!" to hide the fact that today's games are shitty
I want to think it's because back then you only had a potential consumer demographic ranging in the hundred thousands instead of the tens of millions right now. Also dev teams were much smaller and it felt they were more passionate about their work.
What was the last game you played which had this unique charm and i don't mean just fun but a game which you just kept playing for hours.
Please do tell.
It had a few golden ages:
1. 1985 to 1989 (Nintendo coming out with some great, revolutionary shit)
2. 1991 to 1994 (2D reaches its absolute peak here.
3. 1996 to 2001 (Weird stage. 3D often looks like shit but the games are actually starting to get pretty good. Also the golden age of PC).