So, at least 1.1 billion gamers (according to 2018 data) at some point in time and space decided that, for example TD4 is "crappy". All 1.1 billion of them. Must be something worth seen. Care to point me to the place whan I witness this phenomenon by myself, good sire?

Or maybe you should stop assuming that your personal opinions are an indicators of video games (and related paraphernalia) quality? Because, exempli gratia God of War PS4 you apparently held as a "breaking boundaries" game, in my case is an absolute and unquestionable winner of the "The fastest uninstall and being forgoten after checking it" contest. It single handed beat even bunch of really shaddy Wii games that I bought in Jalan Petaling Market in Kuala Lumpur Chinatown years ago; from the stall of some guy who was also selling "Rollax" watches, "Somy" mobiles and "absolutely genuine" jewelry with the equally "absolutely genuine" diamonds size of a golf ball.

And yes, I condemn the whole group of games, because in my opinion they failed to fulfill the most important condition of being a good games: they are not providing anything that will justify spending my free time on them.
But this, however, is only my opinion. I don't think that anyone else on this planet is obligated to share it. Therefore I don't feel a need to create neither lists of the_only_right_fun_and_certified_games, nor telling anybody how to judge them. Because it's beyond dumb.

Nope. It's absolutely worse now. Making anything at all, even garbage, used to take at least a little effort and ability, so it was relatively limited compared to today. (Even that E.T. game took 5 weeks; you can do that in a day now.) You don't seem to be aware of all the copy-paste trash being released, but ignoring it doesn't make it not exist. That was mostly about consoles and mostly in the US. As someone who never owned a console, I was unaware of the "video game crash" until many years later. Gaming in general wasn't actually in any danger of being killed off.

Yeah you are right... A golden age for indie games, a huge amount of cross-platform play, players having more influence in what their games are, both indie and AAA developers getting more experimental, advances in VR, and various excellent remakes of old games shows this gaming generation sucks... Oh wait no, you are just being ignorant. You can dislike new games all you want, but saying that modern gaming is nothing trash is just dumb. Also no you can’t make s game in a day, that is especially ignorant. Do your research in game development before trying to talk about it.
I am fully aware of all the copy-paste trash that is released, but again: problem with gaming since day one. 90% of everything is trash. Even if you ignore the game crash, most shovelware is on computers. As someone who never owned a console surely you must have noticed a majority of old computer games sucking.

Its called game reviews. If you check a bunch of reviews, a lot of people don't care for Test Drive 4 and find it mediocre at best. You can defend it all you want, but in the end most people don't care for it.

I never did. That is what you are doing.

You do seem to feel the need to get unnecessarily offended by such lists and make even dumber comments though. You are entitled to your opinion, but you also can't change the fact there are games that are in fact objectively bad.

Also I never did make lists like those... The Ten Commandments thing here is just a goofy joke and I have specifically said multiple times that if you enjoy something that others consider bad, that is perfectly ok.

Fair enough, it is too clunky and easy for my tastes but I admit it does have a nice narmy charm to it.

Law Review:

1. Agree, by its nature and subjectivity. I'd say that most flaws are minor and inconsequential in the long run.

2. Agree. A product review shouldn't focus on this point when sales are frequent.

3. Disagree. Sometimes letting people know that the game isn't functioning on a certain system can be good. Most of the time reviews do this wrong though.

4. I agree but on the basis I don't really want to hear this in a review because a game should be judged on its own merits and not on the merits of the past or peers. The games industry isn't making the same mistakes as yesteryear, but they're still mistakes.

5. Situational. Can't agree with this because sometimes purchasers have gotten an important and timely message through reviews. Disagree.

6. Hey now... Deus Ex is the best game ever.

7. Agreed, please be precise with language.

8. Brevity is the soul of wit, but make sure to make short stuff witty. Agree.

9. Disagree, a little bit of background if used right can enhance the readability. A short story of how a reviewer has encountered the game may be good

10. It's impossible to look at anything 100% objectively, so as long as the user is honest they can let nostalgia influence them while still keeping commandment number 1. Disagree

FINAL JUDGEMENT

5/10. Gets the points about objectivity correct but lets these bleed into the subjective areas of preference.

Sentence: Playing the eurojank game Gothic to completion.

Agreed, like I said this was meant as a joke so not a lot of thought was put into it, but I certainly should revise these.
That’s actually been a game I’ve been to get. What are your thoughts on it if I may ask?

Thanks! That was a really good review, I will keep it in mind.

Maybe it is semantics, so I don't want to belabor this, but I am not seeing how improving upon the old can be said to break boundaries. If anything, it would be an example of staying within the boundaries, or maybe trying to explore the boundary while still staying inside. And have you considered that many newer games are not only not breaking boundaries, but also are consciously "reducing the size" of the boundaries? This is the case due to many relevant facts that have colored the gaming market. When gaming went mainstream, it changed everything and, no, not for the better.

Other users in this topic have done a great job articulating why there are reasons to prefer an older game over the more-praised and newer "improved" sequel. I would go one further and say some of the "subjective" reasons an older game is better can actually be viewed as objective. For example, using text instead of voice-acting objectively allows for vastly more expansive dialogue trees and quest options. So, more freedom, flexibility and storytelling in that type of old game. Don't even get me started on old-school FPS level design versus modern.

I think talking about whether the newer game has freedom comparable to the older game is VERY relevant in a review, since this can impact decisions on purchasing and really even beyond that can be a reflection on game quality itself.

Oh, and I didn't much care for your "100 bad games" list, either. There are some gems in there, man!

Just being all around better and polishing what went wrong in older games. You don't have to be innovative to break a boundary.

Indeed, however at the same time there has been a lot of ignoring of what new games do better: quick patches, greater creativity, better balancing story and gameplay, being able to appeal to multiple demographics, etc. Few things in games are really objective, It is important to remember that more freedom isn't automatically good, it has its own problems and many people just prefer linear systems. Many games of today are actually much better at telling stories than most old games thanks to people making them taking stories more seriously. Tastes change, as nostalgiaic a lot of old gameplay elements are there is a reason games stopped doing them from lack of popularity to over-saturation... Since lets be honest, FPS became what they did because a LOT of crappy Doom and Unreal knock-offs got released and people got tired of them. Eventually people will get tired of FPS games now and they will move on to a new model, it is kinda already happening. Plus in all honesty all the things you mentioned never left, they just aren't mainstream anymore.

I have no problem with people preferring older games, I have a problem with people dismissing and hating on newer games without trying them or even reading up on them. There is a metric ton of awesomeness in new games and a lot of improvements that are only going to result in even better games, ignoring that feels immensely ignorant and incredibly disrespectful to the people making them, both indie and AAA. Its the equivalent of someone going "old games stink because their graphics aren't good!", you can go ahead and dislike it but don't go condemning nor declaring all games of a group are bad.

Like I said: there is no problem with liking a bad game. I myself do like some of those games I listed, but I would be lying in saying I think they are good games.

Uhhh...that's definitely not at all the case in the mainstream. The narrative (driven by the gaming industry itself) is that newer is better. They hype new games to high heaven all the time. The fact that this site is so niche in comparison to Scheme and Epic is proof positive that more people are talking up newer games and generating interest for newer games. Not really sure why when stick up for old games without praising newer games, that is somehow supposed to be a negative. The newer games don't need more "help" praising them, they get plenty. If anything they need much, much more criticism because trends that some of us old-school folks enjoy are being lost in the cacophony of "new and improved."

Also, the industry obviously doesn't like the current reality that all games...meaning both old and new, big and small, polished and flawed...are competing against one another in the market. Think about it, if you're trying to sell your platformer game, you are competing against classics like Super Mario Bros. Imo this is an economic reason why they push digital so hard to get to stream-only where they can control the content. You mentioned the Switch so maybe you're aware Nintendo does content-controlling already. My understanding is that they WON'T let you buy the old NES and SNES games, you can only subscribe online to play them. I would hope reviews mention stuff like that, too.

As for freedom/linearity, I don't deny some folks prefer linear. But if the crux of the argument is that newer games are making these amazing boundary-breaking strides in freedom and flexibility, I showed how that is easily and objectively disproven.

And? That is how the game industry has been for literally decades. Plus frankly I think aren't really paying attention to current events, new games get plenty of criticism. You can easily make the same argument for old games as well given nostalgia pandering and GOG itself.

Then explain why nearly every major game company makes their old games fairly easily available both on online services, game that are literally compilations of old games, mini consoles, and even going so far as to remake their old games for newer generations. Indeed the Switch does do that, but for one it makes several games available. And two that is only for the Switch at this point in time, both on the Wii U and 3DS you can buy old games. To say nothing on the various other ways Nintendo has made their old games available.

And I can easily provide proof that there are indeed boundary breaking strides in freedom and flexibility: Minecraft, Witcher 3, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, Divinity: Original Sin 2, the various Yakuza games, Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Stellaris to name some. And this isn't taking into account various unique indie games like Subnautica and Six Ages. As I said, a lot of the stuff you mentioned is gone has not in fact vanished, you just need to look for them.

Yes, it has...so I take it you are retracting your earlier point about how newer games are being ignored. That is objectively false. If you instead want to modify your argument to say newer games are irrationally unappreciated among fans of older games, go ahead, though I think that would be difficult to prove since older gamers (including in this topic) have articulated many reasons why they prefer older games. It is not just "nostalgia glasses" when specific reasons can be provided. Sometimes older really is better. And sometimes new games do improve on the old too...I think reviews can be improved by pointing this out too, particularly in groups of old school gamers who are rightfully wary of newer games these days.

Good question. I would say because they know there is market demand for it, it is very easy profit for little work, and their launch/development cycles of their "real" big projects leave game droughts otherwise. Obviously the market demand for the old games didn't go away even though companies moved away from making these type of games. The companies wanted to sell you the latest new stuff instead, usually which featured more linearity, less flexibility, more "you don't play the game, the game plays you" AAAs.

However, don't think for a minute that the companies are content with this situation of rereleasing old content. I assume their goal in grudgingly throwing these scraps to consumers is mainly to maintain brand awareness. One thing is for sure, the goal is certainly not to have you buy a mini console or HD remake once, and then not buy any of their new stuff. Hence my example of new-Nintendo. I believe many companies will go in that sort of direction where they allow more limited access to older content, on their terms.

With all due respect, multiple posts of yours in this topic seem to come down to "list-dumping," which I think without more information is unhelpful. The reason being, it is not saying much to say that good new games exist or bad old games exist. It has to be contextualized further. For instance, you could look at it by asking what is the ratio of "good-to-bad" modern games now, taking into account THE TOTAL NUMBER of modern games available on the market, versus what it was 20 years ago, taking into account the total number then? How many transcendent games are there now, versus 20 years ago? Out of the transcendent games, then and now, which ones pushed boundaries further? I really like at least 3 of the games you mentioned in this particular quote btw, though I would say they were topped in terms of freedom and gameplay by earlier games in the same series. Again a relevant comparison for a reviewer to make.

I will not, because that was specifically directed at fans of old games purposely trying to ignore good traits of newer games. I agree there are plenty of old games that do what they did better than new games that tried to copy them, I just want respect for the new games that do unquestionably manage to trump the classics that came before them.

Also what do you mean by "the game plays you" games? You mean like games that mess with the player like Undertale?

I'm not too convinced. If they actually wanted to make limited access to their older content, they would try to shut down trading stores. Many gamers both old and young have found a preference in physical media that digital media, for all its strengths, cannot provide... Now to be fair both Microsoft and Sony did try to do that, but they have since abandoned this.

Mainly because I don't want these posts to become freaking novels. I made this post as a joke, not to be a debate section... Which it has become much to my annoyance. Though rest assured I have taken these stats into account and weighed them.
One thing I do wish to propose to you though are taking into account "quality of life" improvements. This is where freedom has often be sacrificed, but generally to great success. As an example: Skyrim does not have anywhere near as much flexibility as Oblivion or especially Morrowind, but has ultimately become the most played gamed in the whole franchise thanks to the creators finding the right balance between giving the players freedom and simplifying things. Personally I think Oblivion is the better game thanks to it's larger amount of control, but I would lying if I said I enjoyed it more than the much more streamlined Skyrim. This is similar I'd say between Witcher 2 and 3... Though in that case I do think 3 is just plain better.

Okay...but I think it is far from "unquestionable" that the newer games are better and yes that includes all the games you listed in this topic. How do you go about proving "unquestionable"? One would think based on objective facts about the game and what it does/doesn't do. But when I tried to work with something objective like this, amount of freedom in the game, you went on to talk about how some people prefer less of it, shifting discussion to subjective.

No, sorry. I mean really linear ones with next to no flexibility. It was just an expression.

So in other words, they did want to make limited access to their older content already. Maybe you have a more optimistic view of how these companies have seen the light and are now all about the consumer. I do not share such a view :)

You posted a 100 point list, but proving your claim would result in the post becoming a "novel"? Sorry, I don't buy that. You're the one making the claim, dude. It's not unreasonable to expect substantiation. I don't think the conversation would've dovetailed so much if it weren't for posting your "bad games list" out of nowhere. Just my opinion on that though.

While that's a fair point, remember that one person's quality of life improvement is another person's detriment to the experience. There are many Elder Scrolls players who will tell you how the creators did not "find the right balance" with Skyrim, or even with Oblivion (compared to the earlier entries), for that matter. Also many quality of life improvements are quite different from the old ways, different enough that usually people will prefer one version strongly over the other.

Also, I'd like to thank you for the discussion. I am not trying to annoy you. I am just trying to show why these various factors would be relevant to consumers/readers.