Why do videogames of today feel so different from video games

>>3577173

Here is my theory: video games started out with arcade machines, where it was the norm to have to try again and again. This kind of design was carried over to early systems like the NES, where the games were short but pretty difficult and required a lot of re-tries.

>>3577173
It was money
Just like Hollywood, it got turned into shit for profit

>>3577173

Simplicity is easier to get 'right' than complexity. Modern games are so complicated that perhaps too much time is spent on making things pretty than perfecting the fundamentals.

>>3577203

That is part of it. In arcades they did want you to die to eat quarters.

But you are missing the other, part. Technical limitations. They couldnt make games very long, so they would make games really hard, even if they werent an arcade port, to make the game take a long time to beat.

Gaming is way easier today. In Nintendo days it was a real accomplishment to actually beat most games. The majority of games people had, they never beat. I probably had 20 Nintendo games, and with exceptions of the seven up game, chess, and sports games which were beatable, which leaves say 15 games, I beat maybe 3 of them. And they were considered easy.

For SNES samething , but ouf of my 20 games, I could probably beat 5 or 6 of them. When N64 came acround, I would be beating 10-12 of them. Nowadays if I like game I could probably beat it, unless it is something like Super Meatboy, I am the guy gaiden, etc.

Another thing worth pointed out: modern games are playtested within an inch of their life. It often feels like you're more tethered to the game world and its rules.

I actually think we started seeing this from NES -> SNES, but not nearly as much as today. A game like Mario 64 would never get released today because the gameplay is too rugged, open and maleable.

File: 1448308606405.webm (3MB, 683x384px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 683x384px

>>3577248
>modern games are playtested within an inch of their life
What irks me is even though this is true we still get shit like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZokdmzvDGA
Games had bugs back then, sure, but the bugs in complex games these days can be really hard to spot out, yet can break a game all the same.
With time, money, and more manpower on a project than games ever had back then, I wonder if saying "its more complex" is reasonable, or just an excuse.

>>3577208

Because before they were for charity, right?

File: Namco F-1 1976.jpg (32KB, 598x292px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 598x292px

Someone should start mass producing dedicated analog electro-mechanical games with novel mechanics but in a form factor where they could be priced around $30-$45 each. Something simultaneously amazing engineering while also having a limited enough technical scope for the gameplay to necessarily be refined to the ultimate detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1WSYdn1b8I

>>3577173
I feel like they don't. There's plenty of modern games especially indie ones that really get down the feeling and charm of older 2d titles.

HOWEVER, there's feeling certain feeling of early 3d titles that next to nobody really does anymore. Maybe it's just a mixture of an aesthetic and a certain charming brand of jank.

Though I also feel like AAA game companies don't take risks anymore like they used to, which I'm sure is a big part of older games feeling different. And that also leaves certain enres/subgenres only being retro games with maybe some indie revival exceptions.

File: pizpromozb8[1].jpg (53KB, 538x418px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 538x418px

>>3577283
Giving kids free Pizza Hut pizzas with their purchase of TMNT 2: The Arcade Game on the Nintendo Entertainment System wasn't charitable?

File: coupon.png (573KB, 686x341px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 686x341px

>>3577409
>with the purchase of
It's called a licensing or brand deal
Are these cereal boxes giving away charity here?

Obligatory Manilli Vanilli episode mentioning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kemK91EKExs

>>3577283

1990
> Let's do <blank> because it'll be really fun. People will like it, so it will increase our sales.

2016
> Let's do <blank> because we have data that shows it'll maximize our profits


The primary difference between these two mindsets is that the modern data-driven mindset moves game design decisions away from the actual designers and game makers and instead relegates the decision making authority to business people who don't care about games, and usually don't even play them.

>>3577537

They're both outcomes of the same thing. The real difference is they've gotten better at selling us the same shit year after year.

>>3577548

They're related, but the outcomes are very different.

In the "old days", the business people didn't know anything about games, so they had to place trust in the designers.

> People will like this? You're sure? So that should improve the likeability of our game. It'll be very marketable, and it'll sell more.

But now, the business side doesn't care about fun; it doesn't care about the designers' opinions; it has ~data~ which shows profit maximization.

> Oh, it doesn't matter if this will annoy our customers, make the game less fun, or reduce the critical acclaim of our game. The data shows that it extracts more money from the consumers in the end, so we're making this decision.

>>3577553

Greed, as old as humanity itself. I don't believe in hell, but I'd like to think some greedy fuckers are going to a certain level of the place. Karma's a bitch.

>>3577236
This is why companies like falcom still make such good games. They start with some gameplay concept which is fun, and then see if they can build a game around it. They don't try to force things together that don't fit or seem to be an extension of another aspect of the original idea. Which is the exact opposite of what most game devs seem to do these days.

>>3577409
mom and dad still had to drive the kid to pizza hut and buy a pizza so the kid gets the free pizza

>>3577562
>They start with some gameplay concept which is fun, and then see if they can build a game around it. They don't try to force things together that don't fit or seem to be an extension of another aspect of the original idea
This is literally how you design a game. I'm happy this method has not gone unnoticed today

>>3577173
Yes. The answer is yes.

It's the cynicism. A lot of games these days have abhorrent, blatantly obvious methods of just taking money from you. DLC, preorder exclusives, microtransactions, season passes.

Games are designed around them, and it affects the quality and amount of content within what you originally bought.

I'm not saying retro games weren't also designed to cynically grab money from you, but back then it was stuff like sequel hooks, yearly releases, artificial difficulty and strategy guides. Things that didn't directly affect the core of what you were playing.

>>3577236
Modern games aren't complicated.

Classic games are obtuse as fuck and usually interactive items are no different from decor.

Modern games provide you with item highlights and he'll most even give you an arrow to follow.

Video games used to be designed as video games. If you wanted a game to sell a lot, you just made it fun.

Now games are modeled more after movies. If you want it to sell a lot, you invest in voice actors, writers, directors, sound specialists, etc. If you can make it fun, that's just a plus.

>>3577647
I think what he means is some modern games tend to be complicated in that there's a ton of different systems going at once with no real regard for how they mesh, and a lot of them don't even really do much of note, while older games tend to not be as bloated even if their design is far more obtuse as a method of extending the amount of time spent playing the games.

>>3577562
Falcom still makes good games? Ys is mediocre these days and those Trails games people gush over are pretty boring.

>>3577683
I've heard very great things about VIII.

>>3577537
>>2016
>> Let's do <blank> because we have data that shows it'll maximize our profits

That's bullshit, it has always been that way, you just were too young to know. Do you think collecting data of your customers or the general public is a prerogative of modern times? There were a lot of methods company used to get feedback, magazine polls, letters(yeah, people used to write letters to companies back in the days), getting sales numbers from shops or checking the arcades' revenue.

There's still many people who make games primarily for fun, see games like Neo Atlas, just like there were many people who made games for money, see the CRPG explosion of the 90's where everyone and their mother made a CRPG because it was a successful genre.

What has changed today is the economy and the market, things are bigger, there's bigger risks involved and companies in general are more cautious, this isn't just for videogames, it's for everything, you can notice it more in the media but most other productions are the same.

One other thing is that now we are bombarded by hype commercials for the big cashcows but get relatively little coverage for the smaller games, which is ironic for today's standard, so many games pass under the radar, more so than the past.

To say that people didn't do games for money in the past or that there's no one who deos games because they like it today is being terribly shortsighted.
>>3577562
>This is why companies like falcom still make such good games.

Ys is a mediocre hack and slash that anyone can beat as long as they have decent reflexes and like to machinegun the same attack sequence over and over, LoH games are a joke that make DQVII concise, hope you enjoy cutscenes every five minutes with generic high school students, Tokyo Xanadu turned out to be is Ys, but worse and with generic, chuuni high school students. Gone are the days of Falcom at its prime, and even then Falcom was only really good in the 80s-mid 90's.

>>3577806
>Ys is a mediocre hack and slash that anyone can beat as long as they have decent reflexes and like to machinegun the same attack sequence over and over
So like any action game ever, you retarded cunt?

>>3577815
I sure as hell don't need to press one button for games like Ninja Gaiden, Bayonetta or DMC, and I'm not limited to one shitty attack sequence for the entire game with NPC meatshields following me around, even PSO2 gets that, but whatever you say.

>>3577173

It's mainstream now, so it's just as boring as anything mainstream. People are lazy so games have to be simple and all of them needs to be the same so they don't have to learn something new. Difficulty can't exist because then some people will feel left out for not being able to beat it.

What you have left is like chewing gum. Everyone understands it and it's fun for a few mins, then it loses it's taste and you need a new one.

>>3577173
THERE PIZZA SHEETS
I WAIPE MAH AYSS WITH THEM.

>>3577897
Have you tried... I dunno, playing better games? Just a thought. It could be worth a try.