Posted November 18, 2015
No, it just takes longer to find something that rings true.
A by-product of more choice, that's all.
A by-product of more choice, that's all.
DampSquib
Soup Dragon.
Registered: Nov 2010
From United Kingdom
Crosmando
chrono commando
Registered: Jan 2012
From Australia
Posted November 18, 2015
Not true, EA during it's "rockstar" era in the 80's and 90's treated it's developers with respect, they used to put photos of the developers on the back of their game boxes (thus, treating game developers like rockstars). That's why the company was called Electronic Arts, because developers were treated as artists.
Post edited November 18, 2015 by Crosmando
timppu
Favorite race: Formula__One
Registered: Jun 2011
From Finland
Posted November 18, 2015
Good games go to Heaven,
Bad games go to Pattaya.
I don't generally think we are worse off, considering one can choose nowadays between big budget AAA games and low budget indie games. Back in the old times the only games you could normally get were those that big publishers (EA etc.) decided to take to international distribution, so that they'd finally appear at your local computer store. Nowadays the selection of games on the market is far higher, due to digital delivery.
It is easy to look back and see only the classics, forgetting all the bad games that were released back then. As some already point out, there were dark times back then too. I vividly recall when (PC) gaming was proclaimed dead because of the influx of FMV games where the gaming part was secondary to watching some B-class actors talk in grainy videos. Heck, some of those are considered classics now, have some of them also on GOG.
Or, the times when people complained there are nothing but Doom-clones or Command&Conquer-clones on the market, or the arrival of 3D accelerators made developers make games where 3D felt forced (like many RTS games). Nowadays we remember only the best Doom clones and RTS games from those years, and consider them as classics. Just like 10 years from now we will warmly think of many games released now.
There are certainly some tendencies in gaming market that might feel negative now (for me e.g. the free-to-play model with microtransactions, as that can affect the gameplay adversely (pay-to-win, or luck has a bigger factor in gameplay), or the forces "social features" to even single-player games, as if it would be abnormal to play games alone without other players online at the same time), but still each era seems to have had such negative tendencies.
Bad games go to Pattaya.
I don't generally think we are worse off, considering one can choose nowadays between big budget AAA games and low budget indie games. Back in the old times the only games you could normally get were those that big publishers (EA etc.) decided to take to international distribution, so that they'd finally appear at your local computer store. Nowadays the selection of games on the market is far higher, due to digital delivery.
It is easy to look back and see only the classics, forgetting all the bad games that were released back then. As some already point out, there were dark times back then too. I vividly recall when (PC) gaming was proclaimed dead because of the influx of FMV games where the gaming part was secondary to watching some B-class actors talk in grainy videos. Heck, some of those are considered classics now, have some of them also on GOG.
Or, the times when people complained there are nothing but Doom-clones or Command&Conquer-clones on the market, or the arrival of 3D accelerators made developers make games where 3D felt forced (like many RTS games). Nowadays we remember only the best Doom clones and RTS games from those years, and consider them as classics. Just like 10 years from now we will warmly think of many games released now.
There are certainly some tendencies in gaming market that might feel negative now (for me e.g. the free-to-play model with microtransactions, as that can affect the gameplay adversely (pay-to-win, or luck has a bigger factor in gameplay), or the forces "social features" to even single-player games, as if it would be abnormal to play games alone without other players online at the same time), but still each era seems to have had such negative tendencies.
Post edited November 18, 2015 by timppu
Randalator
Deadpan Snarker
Registered: Jun 2012
From Germany
Posted November 18, 2015
Anyone remember the 1983 video game crash that was caused in no small part by a flood of horrendously bad, soulless shovelware titles?
Matruchus
Don't ignore Tux
Registered: Jun 2011
From Slovenia
Posted November 18, 2015
Definitely they have lost their attraction, addictivness in comparison to old classics. I can remember how we played C&C, Quake, Warcraft 3 and other games to the death. Nowadays new releases become boring very fast since they are just recycled versions of things that we have already seen, without stories or baddly written stories. The fun factor is just missing. From all the games I bought and played, in last years, I rarely finished any of them cause they get so boring very fast. Now if you give me and old classic like Dune 2000 that I played before I will still play through it to the end and enjoy myself.
Gonen32
New User
Registered: Feb 2012
From Other
Posted November 18, 2015
Take off the nostalgia goggles and define "soul".
I kinda feel like you but we have to think about it in an non biased way.
I kinda feel like you but we have to think about it in an non biased way.
R8V9F5A2
New User
Registered: Jun 2014
From Sweden
Posted November 18, 2015
The traits that Doom and Duke Nukem had were adapted to the mainstream market of the time.
What the mainstream market wants and expects changes with the technology and the production costs.
In other words the more you can potentially do the more people expect: more story, prettier graphics, more variety, open worlds, lots of multiplayer options and so on.
The perception of 'soul' in a game is a personal thing. There are plenty of triple-a games I felt had 'soul', most recently: Mad Max, GTA 5, Ride, Alien Isolation, Risen 3, Lost Planet 3, Metro Last Light, Tomb Raider...
There are plenty of indie titles I don't consider have a 'soul', like Terraria, I Am Bread and Goat Simulator.
To expect every game to be soulful is to expect far too much considering how big the gaming market it is, and how many genres and cross-over genres there are. Its not as if every game from the 90's will feel soulful, only the ones we feel nostalgic towards. Growing up I was never into Doom, Quake and all that so to me those games don't feel more soulful than modern FPS games...on the contrary even.
Indie developers and niche game developers, like those who make simulation games for example, are able to focus on a much smaller segment of the market and can customize their games much further than triple-a developers can.
This customization makes the game feel more tailor-made for the gamer, thus more personal and soulful...is my thinking.
For example when I play the latest MotoGP game the game itself feels more personal than when I play a big mainstream title like GTA 5, because the MotoGP game is tailor-made for me as a follower of MotoGP on TV as well as someone whose favourite gaming genre is 'racing'.
What the mainstream market wants and expects changes with the technology and the production costs.
In other words the more you can potentially do the more people expect: more story, prettier graphics, more variety, open worlds, lots of multiplayer options and so on.
The perception of 'soul' in a game is a personal thing. There are plenty of triple-a games I felt had 'soul', most recently: Mad Max, GTA 5, Ride, Alien Isolation, Risen 3, Lost Planet 3, Metro Last Light, Tomb Raider...
There are plenty of indie titles I don't consider have a 'soul', like Terraria, I Am Bread and Goat Simulator.
To expect every game to be soulful is to expect far too much considering how big the gaming market it is, and how many genres and cross-over genres there are. Its not as if every game from the 90's will feel soulful, only the ones we feel nostalgic towards. Growing up I was never into Doom, Quake and all that so to me those games don't feel more soulful than modern FPS games...on the contrary even.
Indie developers and niche game developers, like those who make simulation games for example, are able to focus on a much smaller segment of the market and can customize their games much further than triple-a developers can.
This customization makes the game feel more tailor-made for the gamer, thus more personal and soulful...is my thinking.
For example when I play the latest MotoGP game the game itself feels more personal than when I play a big mainstream title like GTA 5, because the MotoGP game is tailor-made for me as a follower of MotoGP on TV as well as someone whose favourite gaming genre is 'racing'.
Emob78
jack and coke plz
Registered: Dec 2012
From United States
Posted November 18, 2015
No, games have not lost their soul.
Game DEVELOPERS on the other hand...
Game DEVELOPERS on the other hand...
timppu
Favorite race: Formula__One
Registered: Jun 2011
From Finland
Posted November 18, 2015
However, I put the blame more to me getting older, and there being far more games available for me to play now (both old and new games). I don't think it is really related to e.g. the quality of games becoming worse or such.
I do recall being like OMG OMG OMG when first hearing about Thief: The Dark Project (long before it came out), or Half-life, or being first in the line to buy Wing Commander 3 when it arrived to the local IT store. Those days are long gone for me, I don't get so super-excited for single titles anymore, even though generally I still enjoy gaming quite a lot.
Come to think of it, it is the same for movies, I'm hardly ever looking forward to new movies anymore, and my expectations for them are generally quite low. I'll watch them at some point, e.g. a couple of weeks ago I saw Oblivion (the Tom Cruise 2013 movie) from the TV, it was... ok, I guess. I hardly ever go to cinema anymore either. On the other hand, I recall being super-excited back in the day when seeing the first trailers for Terminator 2, or Matrix. OMG OMG OMG!
Also another thing is that the advancement of technology used to be much faster back then, which also increased the amazement. You suddenly saw the kind of graphics you never thought would be possible, or completely new genres (largely made possible by the advancement of technology) etc. Nowadays such advancement are much less profound. Sure Witcher 3 looks better than Witcher 2 looks better than Witcher, but still...
Post edited November 18, 2015 by timppu
LiquidOxygen80
In the 36 Chmbrs
Registered: Sep 2010
From United States
Posted November 18, 2015
EA have always been assholes. They prevented FO1 from beign Wasteland 2 because they didn't wanted to part with the license. They forced a Wasteland sequel which wasn't needed. They drove Origin, arguably one of the most important PC devs of all time, to the ground. They started their sports series in the early 90s. Everything "bad" they do now, they've always done.
The shallow, "cinematic" cookie cutter experiences have always been there. Think of FMV. That shit is ridiculous. Devs who want to be filmmakers have been around for a long time, and they will never go out of gaming.
People who think games should cater to minorities and diversity have always been there. I mean, there were people in 1998 who thought people shouldn't play Shadow Warrior because it was culturally insensitive and offensive to minorities. Game design be damned.
The decline of shooters is probably the only problem that is real, and it's due to one simple design decision: shift from keycard hunting and mouse and keyboard to headshots and twin sticks. Heavy metal vs dubstep happens to be a thing of the times: they just want to cater to what's popular at the time.
But yeah, gaming and games have mostly had the same problems we love to complain about today. The thing that doesn't help is that game developers and, most of the times, gamers themselves are somewhat of the bottom of the barrel when it comes to culture and knowledge. I'm not saying they are imbeciles, but an industry is just as good as the people running it. Don't expect too much from people consuming pop culture 24/7 and nothing else.
Myst was good. I'm sure if I thought about it further, I could come up with more games that are considered classics, that utilized FMV in ways that actually made sense and enhanced games.
I think it's all a matter of perspective and I also think that it's harder to separate the soulless drek from the actual gems, because of the sheer number of choices we're given. We also have a journalist industry that's more focused on blogging about their feels than telling us if a game is good or not, which contributes to the problem, or the games they decide to focus on aren't actually good, they just push an agenda the writers tend to agree with.
That said, good new games are still out there, you just have to burn some garbage to find them.