The fact is that the market is willing to still pay for these GoG games. The market price of 'modern games' isn't $60 but actually around $10-$20 as the used market reveals the true value of the Modern Games.

Honestly, I would not be surprised if the poster was born in the 1990s or later. There are many things that have changed with gaming which is why modern games are getting worse (for a fact: the gaming market has been shrinking and has been stagnant or in decline since the 2000s if you factor out population growth). The big three things I can think of are:

-Games were developed as inspiration to books and board games. Today, games are developed as inspired by movies.

-Most Modern Games aren't programmed from the ground up. They use what is called 'kits' which is why so many games *feel* like one another. When you use the same game engine for so many games, things start to feel samey.

-Modern games are designed for the consoles more and not for the PCs. Many older games are better since they utilize the PC environment better (such as being mod friendly). As for oldschool console games, they were not dumbed down PC games but arcade game or based on that timeless arcade gameplay.

And Unreal Tournament 1 is still incredible. I'm actually playing that now.

In addition, the music on the older games tend to be better. Modern game music seems to be more 'epic orchestra' (as if the game was a movie) but is not memorable. Whatever one may think of games like Chrono Trigger, Unreal Tournament, or Command and Conquer: they had memorable music.

I bet that wasn't nearly as bad as Command and Conquer on PSX (or StarCraft 64, for that matter). Mouse-driven RTS games on a console: what were they thinking?

to a lesser extent I disagree some game with orchestra did it well like God of War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyPyG6n1dCU

Halo

and more modern final fantasy games like Final Fantasy 10

You seriously need to learn how big scale software development works if you think using an existing and proven engine in a game is a bad thing. You focus on what you're trying to do (make a fucking game) not making the tools. When you hire a contractor to build your house do you only hire guys that cut down trees and smelt some ore to make their hammers, saws, and nails? It's the same thing. You focus on your core competency. Trying to do shit that isn't your core focus is the source of more software project failures than literally anything else I can think of.

The fact that you lump all modern games together in the "getting worse" category is a bit telling with regards to your objectivity. No, this is not me disagreeing with your point, this is me telling you there's no point in even disagreeing because you can't seem to see the forest for the trees. There are amazing games being made today, every bit as outstanding as in any era of gaming.

And finally, I was just at PAX, I'm pretty sure the new Neverwinter game, along with a crapton of others I played, are not based on movies, but on the board games and books that you seem to think makes superior source material (I'm not sure why video games actually need source material, but since you seem to, I'll throw that out there).

I don't disagree with this. As with any other development, most developers will necessarily be somewhere between barely adequate and mediocre. I really wish I knew why, but this stuff is beyond hard for most people. The more time they have with a given toolset the better they can become with it.

Of course that reinforces my argument that using existing and proven foundations, such as engines and toolkits (such as Havok) are actually a really damned good thing. They get to concentrate on their game more than tweaking tools that they'll necessarily be worse at creating and maintaining than someone who's primary job it is to just build tools (and no, you can't just put "a couple guys on the team" on that one, it's a little more complicated).

I never said old games were bad, I said many of their mechanics are clunky, haven't aged well, and make a lot of them less fun to play than when they were released. Obviously many were stinkers right out of the gate. Of course you can name a list of 10 or even 50 great games that have easily stood the test of time (or at least most of it), but people often lose sight of the fact that they're listing less than .1% of the games from their pretended "golden age".

Look, basically I agree with you, some of those old games are fucking fun, and it's not just nostalgia... but sometimes I have to admit that it is nostalgia and they're not going to be fun for most (certainly not all) players that pick them up today and have no experience. I just watched a non-video gamer play two arcade games this weekend, Dig Dug and Centipede. Those are classics by anyone's standards, but that individual wasn't interested in playing them more than 5 minutes apiece, and I can see why, from their perspective it's a novelty and nothing more (they were much more interested in some newer games, though, lest you think they just didn't like games).

I don't agree with many of his points. I think for the most part, retro gaming love has to do with length and nostalgia. The former is valid, as modern IP's value a singleplayer length just long enough to carry users over until a price drop in the used market makes room for DLC for everyone.

The latter is of course the crux of the problem, as nostalgic users influence the purchase decisions of latter comers who did not benefit from playing this game in the technological bubble/emotional frame of mind that they did. This is where a lot of my personal resentment towards the glowing reviews many users give games with obvious flaws.

Personally, I considar Metroid 3 for SNES one of the epochs of gaming, but I bet it didn't age well. I played Metroid Fusion, and it scratched several of the same itches, but what would a 14 year old think of Metroid Fusion? After playing Skyrim, or New Vegas, would they even care? This is the essence of the debate. If graphics/tech complexity =/= quality, than a 14 year old weened on COD, GTA, and Halo should like Metroid Fusion just as much as I loved Metroid 3.

But, I think most of us would agree that this is not the case. Answering why, however, has proven more elusive, and led us down this rabbit hole we inhabit together, reluctantly :)
That whole meme of "games where you can move the world 90/180/360 degrees got old fast.

Value of every product is the amount of money people are willing to pay for it.

New games sell best in first week or month. People pay full $60 price then, because the game is worth that sixty to them. Then, sales numbers drop, so after that short initial period, value of that game drops significantly.
Yup, this is true for me, too. Many GOG classics I played for the very first time by playing them here. And yeah, I enjoyed Blood: One Unit Whole Blood more than Modern Warfare. despite the fact I played Blood few years AFTER i played Modern Warfare.

Nostalgia isn't the factor for me. Many folks are saying something like "I though this game was better, but when I played it again, it sucked so bad, I guess it's just my memories". That was never true for me.

As I've said, I started my gaming experience with NES console. And guess what? I downloaded many NES roms and an emulator, and I play them today too. And they are still as brilliant as they were. I also discover tons of NES games I haven't played when I was a child, and they are awesome too. (there are tons of games that suck balls, but they sucked back then so they suck today, simple)

What I find interesting is the pixel art love, new games being made with art which tries to imitate the limitations of graphic systems from 25 years ago, and people loving it.

Because it's relatively easy to draw, much easier to animate and has low demands on performance. Necessity is the mother of invention in this case.

I understand why developers might use it, but I don't understand it from the gamer side.

When anybody says that gamers are seeking for realism in graphics, he's usually full of shit.

Average human being would rather seek for artistic integrity, a vision and unique style that fits the rest of the game.

I usually find "photorealistic" graphics in games as boring as hell. All grey and brown modern shooters that are different from each other only in numbers of polygons and texture sizes. Yawn.

Well, there are many signs that the age of your average gamer today puts him square in the first major nostalgic generation, so to speak. Take a look at reddit's /r/gaming – those guys are salivating over anything even remotely related to the NES. And indie devs are going to ride that wave for as long as they can, you can be sure of that.

And I do agree with keeveek – the idea that most gamers want shiny graphics is not supported by any hard data at all. But GPUs won't sell themselves.

I think that pixel art nowadays is only accepted as long as it's a small, independent team.

Just think of what would happen if, say, EA or Ubi-Soft would release a pixel art game. That wouldn't work.


Honestly, I think the guy in that link in the first post doesn't have a clue. Most of these old games actually have aged better than a lot of games released last year.

It's the same thing with old movies. Sure, effects might look dated and the pace might not be the way we're used today but they are still great movies and once your brain has adjusted to these old effects, they are just as fun to watch as they were when they were released.

The problem is, today's people often don't give their brain the time it needs to adjust and dismiss a game (or movie) too soon.

Too true.

As far as pixel art goes, though, don't forget about 3d Dot Game Heroes. I believe that was a AAA title, yes?