Unpopular Opinions: The Thread

Touchfuzzy

Rantagonist
Staff member
Lead Eagle
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
7,232
Reaction score
8,734
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMZ
Dark Souls came out in 2011, so didn't fit the 2012-2019 8 year period.
 

FleshToDust

I make youtube videos
Veteran
Joined
Jul 10, 2017
Messages
744
Reaction score
2,864
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
Oh a time period. Fair enough.
 

Aesica

undefined
Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2018
Messages
1,483
Reaction score
1,371
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
@Touchfuzzy It's also worth noting that there are just plain more games released each year now than there was back then. If you compare the ratio of good/bad games back then vs the ratio of good/bad games now, it doesn't look good for now.
 

bgillisp

Global Moderators
Global Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
13,429
Reaction score
14,163
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMVXA
Plus I think the bad games stand out more due to the high press they get. Back in the 80s/90s bad games were usually forgotten 1 - 2 months after release. But now between youtube and other stuff I think more of the bad games are at the forefront of the news, and therefore everyone's memory.
 

Touchfuzzy

Rantagonist
Staff member
Lead Eagle
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
7,232
Reaction score
8,734
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMZ
@Touchfuzzy It's also worth noting that there are just plain more games released each year now than there was back then. If you compare the ratio of good/bad games back then vs the ratio of good/bad games now, it doesn't look good for now.
Yes and no. I doubt the percentage of bad games is that much different. I guarantee that if you take the average modern game, and the average game from the SNES, the average game now is a better game. The one area where you might have a point is in Indie games, but that is because there is a much lower barrier to entry. But that is a good thing. Yes it means that a lot of bad games because anyone can just throw something onto Steam, but it also means we get a lot of experimental games that just plain out wouldn't have happened back in the day. And when people do the "games these days suck" they are generally talking about actual commercial company releases, not indies.

It is a combination of things. Added to the whole thing of the bad perception of time making people perceive old school as just the gems happening over a few years, we also get more discerning with age. The games we played as kids we just weren't as harsh on. Hell I remember I actually played a good bit of Masters of Teras Kasi and looking back on it that was a god awful garbage game. I played a lot of bad games that I didn't think were bad. But looking back on them I can recognize how bad they were. Again, there were definitely gems, there are great old games. But on the whole, it just wasn't the case.

Also, even if the average game WASN'T better (I still think the average non-indie game is better now than it was, but even if it wasn't), you can only play so many games. It doesn't matter that more games are released now, because I doubt anyone is playing more than about 15-20 in a year at max unless their job depends on it (reviewers for instance). The fact that the list I made averaged 6.5 games a year that I think are FANTASTIC games, most people would never run out of games to play that are top tier. And again, I didn't list anything but games that I've personally played.

This whole "wah wah modern x is bad" is a huge pet peeve for me. Things you experienced in your formative years are always going to have a special place in your heart. That is true of me too. Dragon Quest IV will always be one of my favorite games of all time. But I can recognize that V, VIII, IX, and XI are all games that on a technical level I enjoy more. But DQIV was a game I played as a kid that revolutionized how I thought about video games. So it means MORE to me emotionally. But that alone doesn't mean its actually a better game.

I just think we need to separate our nostalgia and emotional connections from our judgment of modern games. That doesn't mean you can't like older games more. I just think that we have to recognize our own emotional connection in that preference.

(Also, seriously 2017 was a monster year. 2017 was absurd.)
 

TheoAllen

Self-proclaimed jack of all trades
Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
5,573
Reaction score
6,498
First Language
Indonesian
Primarily Uses
RMVXA
As a disclaimer, i never said that modern games are bad. I enjoyed xcom and sunk into fallout 4 for 3 months. They're good games and i will fight to anyone who said otherwise.

The problem just goes back to the graphics that it just bump the system requirement without actually add anything. If i can have the same enjoyment playing games released in 2010 and the only difference is "wow the graphic is much detailed", then it is pretty much the same. As i said once more, i prefer clean simple graphics. The bigger system requirement means an entry barrier. Why just cause 2 is only 4 GB while Just cause 3 is 50 GB while the gameplay core is pretty much the same?
 

Tai_MT

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
5,454
Reaction score
4,823
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
@Touchfuzzy

Not sure how true that actually is. While there were a bunch of garbage games in the eras of SNES... What most people are comparing is the "best" the old games had to offer and the "best" the new games have to offer.

I don't think an "average" comes into play when the vast majority of the "great games" released in the last 10 years tend to be "slightly better" than the best games we got in previous years.

You have to remember that there was a time when people played nearly every single RPG ever released for the SNES and PlayStation because they were THAT good.

How many people play every RPG released for modern consoles? It isn't that many. I can count on one hand the amount of RPG's I've played in the last decade from new consoles. Meanwhile, in the 8 years of lifespan you attribute to the SNES, I played almost every RPG available for the system with few exceptions.

RPG's of today simply do not hook me the same way the RPG's of old did. And when they do hook me, I am hooked just like I used to be. Mass Effect is the one I often cite as one of those RPG's that hooked me. Hasn't been an RPG since that I've even remotely enjoyed.

At some point, we kind of need to admit that there's been a rapid decline in quality of video games. The AAA industry doesn't want us to know that or to believe it... But... it's true.

Think about that a second. We went from hard-hitting story driven narratives in shooters to... Michael Bay action flicks so full of cliché and pointlessness... We went from Story and choice driven RPG's with challenge to... RPG's that anyone can beat without trying and next to no story in them. We went from engaging platformers with tests of skill and boss fights to... Easily conquered platformers with no boss fights. We went from exploring vast open worlds with all kinds of interesting and unique things to see and do... to open world collect-a-thons. We went from games that require skill and patience... to lootboxes and buying power.

I dunno about you, but I've seen the decline. Even in quality.

It isn't even difficult to see the decline in quality. Old games didn't get a "Day 1 Patch" or a hundred other patches to fix a broken game. Most games had to work the minute they released. Most games did work. Today though? Nearly every single game released is broken beyond repair and they have to "Day 1 Patch" the game, despite a 3 year development cycle to get it right... and then there's a thousand other patches they release to fix other issues as they go along or to rebalance multiplayer aspects that they never tested to begin with.

I'm sorry, but games are being released, on average, of far inferior quality than they were in the past. That's just an unavoidable fact.
 

Touchfuzzy

Rantagonist
Staff member
Lead Eagle
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
7,232
Reaction score
8,734
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMZ
1. Spec Ops: The Line has one of the best and most impactful stories in any shooter ever. Also, since when did old shooters have good stories? Like, name one old shooter with a good story.
2. You are hard focusing on 1 specific genre (RPGs)
3. Honestly every RPG from the SNES/PSX era is honestly not as good as we remember them. There are very few I go back and play and go "yeah, this still stands up". Most of them were good for when they released, but have simplistic stories and mechanics with very little actual choice.
4. I can't say that I have a high opinion of what you think of "modern RPGs" when you admit you've played 5 or less of them.

While I think the PSX was the golden age of JRPGs, I think the writing in SNES era RPGs is vastly overrated. There were only a few that stand up now as good writing (Chrono Trigger for instance). A lot of the writing is very simplistic and basic. Even PSX RPGs that I really love, like Xenogears had major issues (the second disc is abysmal, I still love the game but man the budget/time issue killed the momentum of that game).

Also, I'd say the stories in Marvel's Spiderman & Nier Automata blow almost anything from the SNES/PSX era away from a writing quality standpoint.

As for day 1 patches? The programming in a modern game is infinitely more complex than they were back then. It is way harder to make a game completely bug free. And most of those old games? They had glitches, too. How many JRPGs had duplication glitches? I remember quite a few. But with those old games they could never be fixed.

And with new games being released broken: Honestly completely overstated. Outside of a couple of studios that are known to release giant bugfests (looking at you Bethesda (though this hasn't changed, Daggerfall was released in 1996 and was also super buggy)), I've played like... 1 game in the last 10 years that truly had gamebreaking bugs (Anthem, and Anthem is a lesson in bad management that goes beyond "average game release problems")

I've very rarely actually played a game where the glitches that later got patched out actually affected my playthrough. And from my comments and yours, I suspect I've played a lot more modern titles than you have.

So no, the idea that your opinion is "fact" is not in fact, fact.
 

Tai_MT

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
5,454
Reaction score
4,823
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
1. Spec Ops: The Line had an interesting premise. The problem I had with that game is fairly early on, I realized the twist (because the writing really wasn't as clever as so many people think it was). Don't get me wrong, I loved the idea of it, but... it was telegraphed too hard too early on.

As for Oldschool Shooters with good stories? Um, gee... I dunno...

Halo. Perfect Dark (not Perfect Dark Zero, that story was a complete mess and absolute garbage). Call of Duty Modern Warfare 1. Call of Duty World at War (quality of the singleplayer narrative has drastically decreased over the lifespan of the franchise). Turok 1 and Turok 2. The original Rainbow Six (though this is likely more of a tactical shooter than anything... the story was still pretty good). Farcry 1. Farcry 3 was "above average", but wasn't complete garbage like Farcry 4 and later 5. Doom 3 had a pretty good storyline despite the fact that the gameplay was absolutely mediocre. Does Dead Space count as a shooter? Probably depends on how we classify "Shooters".

Oh, and keep in mind... some of these games are ones I didn't even play until after the system they were released on was pretty much obsolete. Turok 1 and 2, when I first played them were just fun shooters. When I bought them again as remastered versions and had to interact with the story, I found it quite interesting alongside most of the Lore. I didn't even play most of the Call of Duty franchise until sometime after Modern Warfare 3 was released and I picked up the old games on sale for cheap. I even picked up Doom 3 on discount long after it had already made it's mark.

Do we count Fallout 3 as a shooter? I mean, it's an FPS with RPG elements... I classify it as a shooter. It's got a pretty good storyline.

Or, we could go way back to super old-school games like "Strife". A game that I saw on YouTube as a review and picked it up through Steam. It's got old Doom 1 graphics and gameplay (made on the same engine) and yet the story is amazingly good, alongside the gameplay. Honestly, I had more fun with Strife than I did with Doom 1 and Doom 2.

2. I'm focusing on RPG's for a couple reasons (and I'm not even sure why it matters, except as a means to try deflect). The first reason is that these are RPG Maker forums. Meaning, pretty much everyone here can relate to RPG's and playing them. This ain't "Shooter Maker Forums" where we all build shooters. It ain't "Platformer Maker Forums" where we all build platformers and Metroidvanias. We're basically building RPG's here. So, you know, treading ground we all have in common. Easily relatable. The second reason is... RPG's tended to be the main staple of most of my gaming in those "nostalgia years" you are talking about. So, it serves as a relevant example of what I've personally seen. Not just of my own behavior, but of behavior of the game market in general. At 16, nearly everyone on the internet I knew was playing SNES and PS1 RPG's and JRPG's via emulation or actual console. Tons of websites dedicated to it. Not just obtaining the games, but creating excessively comprehensive guides (we're talking so in detail, they put any modern wiki for a video game to shame). Today though? Yeah, not so much of that. For any game, really. I don't even know a lot of people even playing RPG's these days... even on these forums. I mean, you have... what, the three major ones most people have played? Persona, Dragon Quest, and Shin Megami Tensei? You have an occasional "Xenogears" fan, but that's it.

If you'd like me to talk extensively about every genre of games I've ever played and compare the quality of what I used to play to what I have currently played, we can do that. But, I figured limiting my scope to mostly RPG's would probably be better. Especially since I have no idea what genres other than RPG's you've even extensively played.

RPG's are the common ground, so that's where I'm treading (obviously, since you didn't even know shooters other than Spec Ops: The Line even had a story). If you'd like to tread in other genres of games, I'm more than happy to oblige, but I prefer something we're both fairly equally versed in.

3. Honestly... I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. I didn't tolerate garbage games when I was a kid and I still don't tolerate garbage games. Games I enjoyed as a child, I still enjoy as an adult. Part of my discerning tastes, I guess. Or, rather, I didn't enjoy things just because I was "easy to please" as a child. I'd wager most people are like that. Nostalgia is less about "I have fond memories of playing this game" and more "I actually had fun playing this game". I have nostalgia about being 8-12 and hanging out with my friends all day and watching TV and playing silly childhood games. I don't have nostalgia about the quality of products. It helps when you grow up poor and buying a crap game actively ruins your gaming experience for the next 6-8 months before you can even get another game.

Most of the RPG's I played growing up, I still enjoy playing today. Many of them I bought two or three times on separate platforms. Enjoyed each full run of the game again. Why? Because I had fun. Not because I have some "fond memories" of playing them. I know full well the flaws of every single game I enjoy and ding those games appropriately. But, those flaws don't diminish my fun.

Meanwhile, so many new games I end up playing have their flaws actively ruining the fun. Actively working against my attempts to enjoy myself.

4. Can't say I have a high opinion of what you think of Modern RPG's when five is all you've played... and five is really all that exist. Lesseeeeeee… you got um... Fallout, I guess... Shin Megami Tensei franchise... Xenogears franchise... Dragon Quest franchise... and... I guess Dragon Age franchise? Not a lot of choice for modern RPG's out here.

I pick up RPG's that look interesting to me. The problem is that RPG marketing doesn't really tell you much of anything about the story of the game. Which, you know, is the primary reason I ever got into playing RPG's in the first place. Pretty much all the advertising for an RPG is "look at the combat! Look at the flashy graphics! Look at all this beautiful artwork!" and maybe you get a small blurb about what it's actually about.

Personally... I'm not interested enough in RPG's to buy a game without knowing what it's actually about. I'm just not. Flashy graphics aren't going to do it for me. Artwork isn't going to do it for me. Random snippets of pieces of a combat system aren't going to do it for me. Give me a story hook and I'm there. The marketing for modern RPG's isn't a story hook. So, yeah, haven't played a lot of Modern RPG's because... why would I play something that isn't advertising the primary reason I play the genre?

I mean, that's like a shooter advertising that you primarily play Chess in the game rather than shoot people. Who would play that? I guess chess enthusiasts. But... people who enjoy shooters aren't going to play that.

If I just want a game with nothing but RPG combat as the main focus, I'll buy a dungeon crawler. I'm not going to buy an RPG for that. Or... I'll play an MMO.
---
I don't really think there was a "golden age of RPG's" ever. What I think, was that was a time when game studios actually cared to create RPG's and try to make good games with what they had. And, now we have a time where they just don't care.

Were all SNES stories masterpieces of writing? No. But, some of that can likely be blamed on "localization" as well as the limitations of space available to even localize a product (since most RPG's came from Japan). Some of it could also likely be blamed on the fact that the genre of games was still new... and in fact, telling stories in video games was brand new and it was just easiest to give a flimsy justification for why you were doing something. The writing in a great many RPG's isn't stellar or groundbreaking. Yet, a great many of the scenes in these games are executed very well. Powerful scenes that make you feel things. You don't need Shakespeare to move the soul. If you got "Forrest Gump" to just spout "Life is like a box of chocolates", then that's probably all you need. It is less about what is said and more about how it is said.

Though, yeah, a ton of dialogue is super simplistic in the SNES and PlayStation era. Not that I mind. Just looking for a good story, not looking to read a great novel. It's the same thing I look for in modern RPG's. I'm just finding less good stories and an equal amount of badly written dialogue.

Heck, the entire reason I quit playing RPG's was because they stopped telling good stories. It's the reason I swapped over to shooters for a good chunk of my gaming... put simply, shooters were telling stories and RPG's weren't. So, I swapped to the thing that was telling the stories. I even swapped to platformers for a while for the same reason. It's probably quite telling that I enjoyed the story of Banjo Kazooie more than I enjoyed the story of Final Fantasy 7 or Final Fantasy 8. It's probably pretty telling that I enjoyed the story of Portal 1 and Portal 2 more than I enjoyed the story of Final Fantasy 12, Final Fantasy 13, or Final Fantasy 15. It's probably very telling that I enjoyed the story of Dragon Age 1 more than I enjoyed the story of "Trails in the Sky". Or, that I enjoyed the story of StarCraft and StarCraft Brood War more than I enjoyed the story of "The Last of Us".

I've also never played a Spiderman game... because I never saw the point when the franchise storyline is rebooted like every 3 years anyway. Or, the comics are rebooted every 5-8 years. I love Spiderman, but I'm just not going to engage in a franchise that love to rewrite the same exact story about a 100 times and then resell it for a marked up price later. Just... no. It's the same reason I don't buy sports games. Maybe it does have a great story though. I dunno. Never really heard any rave reviews about it, so I'm going to guess you're one of the minority who enjoyed it (or played it). I don't hear much about Nier either. When it first came out, I heard it was good. But, I never picked it up. Probably because of the previously stated reason of, "the advertising doesn't actually tell you what it's about". I mean, I just don't buy products that I know nothing about. And if the advertising isn't going to tell me what it's about, I'm not going to go out of my way to find sources that will tell me. I'll just pass it up. So... maybe it's a good game. Not sure. Probably will never know. Gameplay looked average from what I saw. And without knowing what the story is about, I have no way to know if that average gameplay is even propped up with a compelling reason to continue engaging with it.

I mean... SNES and PlayStation RPG's had like... average or sub-par gameplay at best for most of them. But, you know, they tended to advertise the story a bit. You know, a reason to endure the average gameplay. The repetitive slog of the gameplay.

They uh... just don't do that anymore in advertising. Sorry, but no matter what gameplay you have, after about 5 hours of dealing with it, I'm probably going to be bored of it. I sort of need a good reason to stick around and keep playing. Telling me a good story is usually a great place to start.
---
"As for day 1 patches? The programming in a modern game is infinitely more complex than they were back then. It is way harder to make a game completely bug free. And most of those old games? They had glitches, too. How many JRPGs had duplication glitches? I remember quite a few. But with those old games they could never be fixed."

It sure is! Why, that's why a guy and his brother bashing out code all by themselves on next to no budget have created one of the most convincing and accurate representations of a realistic fantasy realm! Oh, what game am I talking about? Dwarf Fortress. Yeah, they patch the game, but their patches don't usually break new things. Their patches usually exist because what they programmed had unintended consequences (usually to hilarious effect). Their patches don't exist because someone forgot to program the proper AI into the game. Their patches don't exist because someone totally borked the save system. Their patches don't exist because a player managed to find a way to duplicate items.

I'm sorry, but when two guys with pretty much zero budget are beating the pants off of AAA industries with millions of dollars and hundreds of staff... And their games have nowhere near the level of complexity in simulation as Dwarf Fortress does... I sort of fail to see the point of "programming in modern games is more complex". I tend to see it as "programming in modern games is far more lazy". After all, why get it right the first time when you can just patch it later? Why spend the money to hire talented staff when you can spend it on advertising?

As for the old games having glitches. Yep, they did. But... you know... most of those games were put together in less than a year. Kind of understandable at that point. Teams were also like 10-15 guys at most bashing out code. Likewise, I played a lot of those old games and never ran into most of the "glitches" people would report. Including ones that broke the challenge of the games. The first "item duplication" glitch I ever ran into was in Pokémon Red and Blue, and the only reason I even ran into it was because someone posted it online. I never ran into it myself. But modern games? Good luck playing ANY modern game without encountering a single glitch. I encountered very few glitches in old games. Like, we're talking one glitch in every 50 games I played, and I usually couldn't repeat it. Modern games though? Oh yeah, glitch city. Can't even play 3 hours without running into a glitch in basically every modern game.

I'm sorry, but there's just a lot less care in Modern Games than there ever was in older games. You can't even claim "the programming is so complex, there's bound to be glitches!" when a game like Dwarf Fortress bashed out by two guys working for free and distributing their game for free have a more stable game. Especially when it's literally simulating life to an insane degree. Yeah, one of these things is made by people who care, the other is made by people who don't.
---
Also, yeah, new games are released broken. Lots of them. All the time. You must not play a lot of modern games. I can't even count how many "modern" games I even own where I've lost save files... glitched into places I'm not meant to be and failed objectives as a result... had the game just outright crash because of something I was doing... had a game be so poorly optimized that just rendering shadows of stationary objects grinds the game to a freakin' crawl... That's not even counting games that are seriously broken. Aliens: Colonial Marines... Fallout 76... Battlefield 1... Mass Effect Andromeda... Dead Rising 4... Dead by Daylight... Anthem... And these are just games that I've personally played. Or, I dunno, the absolutely broken physics of Grand Theft Auto 5, even. A game that's how many years old and they've never fixed most of their nonsensical glitches that don't break the game, but do actively ruin fun... and actively make multiplayer unfair. Or even glitches in some RPG's that render quest completion impossible. Ones that never get fixed.

These are games that are so broken that despite the fact they can "fix them later", they never really do.
---
It's always amusing to me when people try to throw the word "opinion" at someone without ever knowing what it means or how it's meant to be properly used.

Opinion: "I find fat women attractive".
Belief: "Old games are just as bad as new games".

An opinion cannot ever be proven wrong. That's why it's an opinion.
A belief can be proven correct or incorrect. Through empirical evidence.

Opinions and Beliefs are not synonyms. I wish people on the internet would stop treating them as if they are. Because, they are not, and because they are a very poor way to avoid having to defend your point of view or disprove the opposite point of view.

I am not holding an opinion. I am trying to disprove your belief. I am citing evidence that contradicts your belief.

Saying "you opinion is not a fact" is being insanely disingenuous. It is constructing a strawman to bash it down. So far, you haven't offered evidence to contradict my claims. What you've offered is excuses for your beliefs instead.

It is a fact that games are being released of inferior quality than they have ever been. You just name a measurement in which you want to compare quality, and I'll list examples of how and why. By any metric, this is a fact. Telling me that "It's just your opinion man" is simply deflecting to avoid having to defend your point of view.

My opinion is that I think the color green is pretty.
My opinion is that fried chicken tastes fantastic.

My belief is that modern games are being released of far inferior quality than they had been as recently as 10 years ago. Even 5 years ago.

My opinions cannot be disproven or even argued against. My beliefs can.
 

Ksi

~RTP Princess~
Restaff
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
2,077
Reaction score
1,666
First Language
English
Wow, not even gonna try and read that post. XDDD

On the subject, there's a ton of amazing games recently released, and coming up for release. 3 Houses, for example, blew expectations out of the water. Stoneshard just came out and is cool as sin. The Atelier series continues to hit it out of the park. Long Dark is an amazing game, as are a bunch of other survival games.

I think the thing people who complain about 'bad games' have in common is that they only focus on one genre or type of game and ignore all the amazing games - both AAA and indie - that come out outside of those specific ones they focus on. Like, look at all the platforms and games out there. Yes, there's an abundance and yes, a fair lot of them aren't great. There's a lot that are made by new devs because gammak is a lot more accessable, but that doesn't make them inherently bad or inferior to other games out there.

****, a lot of RPG Maker games are just so soul-filled and great. Do they have issues? Sure, but every game does - every god damned one - but they have a lot of amazing **** too.

Like, **** me, I grew up playing games in the 80s and 90s. I'm from that era. I think people get their heads stuck up their asses so far sniffing the past whiffs of their youth that they can't see the amazing stuff we have nowdays. People *****ing that today's games aren't as good need to wake up from their 90s enduced comas and realise the cool stuff we have now.

You can keep your like of the 90s games and have todays games as your faves too. It is possible, I promise! No need to denigrate either because they're both filled with top teir games.

Like, seriously tho. There's some ****ing great **** out there guys. Just open your goddamn eyes and actually look instead of instantly dismissing anything that doesn't match your exact criteria for 'good'.


Oh, I did read one thing of the above and laughed. Your example of opinion and belief are both opinions.
Just, you know, thought you should know. "I believe all games nowdays are released broken." Opinion. It's about as much a truth as saying all the ones from the 90s were also broken on release. Not true! Though a ton of games back in ye olde 90s were also released broken. They were called bugs and we exploited the **** out of them. Sometimes doing so was the only way to finish a game without pulling our hair out. XDDD

Also belief != fact. XDDD
"I believe it will rain today" doesn't mean it will.
"I believe the sun revolves around the moon." doesn't mean it does.
It's just another opinion. You want the word fact, I think, not belief, because otherwise all religions are true and everything everyone has ever believed (the world is flaaaaat!!! Stars are gods!!! a witch did it!!!) is truth too. Just... pointing the silliness out.

Also, an opinion - I tend to find your comments condescending as all **** very often. It's also a fact. Opinion and fact can coincide at times.
 
Last edited:

Touchfuzzy

Rantagonist
Staff member
Lead Eagle
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
7,232
Reaction score
8,734
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMZ
Like, fudge me, I grew up playing games in the 80s and 90s. I'm from that era. I think people get their heads stuck up their asses so far sniffing the past whiffs of their youth that they can't see the amazing stuff we have nowdays. People *****ing that today's games aren't as good need to wake up from their 90s enduced comas and realise the cool stuff we have now.
Same. I'm old enough to have played all those games as they came out.

Plenty of really good games are coming out now. And in most cases I'd rather play them than go back and play games from the 80s/90s with a few exceptions.

Also @Tai_MT , Seriously, the fact that you didn't hear anything much about the PS4 Spider-man game or Nier Automata tells me that you are just living under a rock. Because both of them got critical acclaim and sold very well.

Maybe if you are missing games that sold over 13 million copies and assuming that almost no one played it, or another that had 4 million sales, then perhaps you are just missing games because you aren't paying attention.

Spider-Man is in the top 10 best selling PS4 games of all time, and is the #1 best selling PS4 exclusive. Just dude. What.
 
Last edited:

Ksi

~RTP Princess~
Restaff
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
2,077
Reaction score
1,666
First Language
English
I have legit sunk too many hours into 3 Houses (should we call it 4 houses now? The new DLC just added another house orz I'm gonna have to start another new game and play again). It's the best Fire Emblem to date.

Like, geez, there's a ton of games I'm hyped to try this year, both indie and AAA ones. FF7r, Rune Factory V, Cyberpunk 2077, the new Ori game, New Horizons, P5 Royal, Trials of Mana, Last of Us part 2, Ghosts of Tsushima, Dragon Age 4, Beyond Good and Evil 2, No More Heroes 3, Tales of Aries, Skull and Bones, Rise of the Third Power, Weird and Horrible Things Are Happening, Heros Realm remake (hopefully), Stoneshard... and that's not counting any of the surprise games that may just appear. I've already gotten one or two this year that I didn't think would come out (like Stoneshard) so early and am enjoying the hell out of them.

I'll always have a soft spot for games like Lufia II, Breath of Fire 2, Final Fantasy 6, Terranigma, Secret of Mana/Evermore/Gaia, Star Ocean 2, Suikoden 1/2/3, Chrono Trigger/Cross, but there's no denying some of them are broken as ****. Hell, Suikoden 2, my most fave game, has a ton of bugs - the American version is flat out missing music files and there's the infamous (and well-beloved) grinding bug that lets you completely sequence break. Games being broken messes on release is not a new thing. XDDD

It doesn't stop them from being amazing games, though. Sometimes the bugs are part of the experience (who hasn't laughed their ass off at horses floating down from the sky in Skyrim?)
 

Touchfuzzy

Rantagonist
Staff member
Lead Eagle
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
7,232
Reaction score
8,734
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMZ
Bethesda is just a special case. Their games have ALWAYS been massively buggy. Like moreso than other companies. I still remember some of the hilarious Daggerfall bugs. Like that you could click where the "stat up" level up controls would be when doing a level up... even when you weren't leveling and had no points to distribute. If you just clicked the area where the stat up button would be... it would raise your stats.
 

bgillisp

Global Moderators
Global Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
13,429
Reaction score
14,163
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMVXA
One thing we forget is in the past, you couldn't patch games as easily. I still got games from the 90s that have critical crash bugs in some cases that just never got patched. One game I recall had a critical bug where they forgot to put enough items in the last dungeon to open the door to get to the final boss, so the only 'fix' is to happen to carry that missing item with you the entire game. Never been patched too as far as I know.

Or Pool of Radiance? The 80s version is very crash prone and was even when I played it back when it was new. But people put up with it.

So honestly some 80s/90s games really needed day one patches too. As there are some that are just unplayable, and if you hit the critical crash bug, too bad.
 

TSR

The Northern Frog
Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
246
Reaction score
208
First Language
French
Primarily Uses
RMMV
Wow, this is quite a hot subject among older gamers :p
I do agree with @Touchfuzzy that we all judge things based on our own experiences.
I used to be a kid who play games, now I'm a 40yo man. I still play games from time to time, but not enough to be in a position to have a fair opinion on modern games (and yes, appart from a few exceptions, I do focus mainly on RPGs and strategic games).

The aspect I wanted to point out in my previous post was the fact that I just feel that while video games technology improved a lot over the years, 'fun factors' remain about the same. Games are what they are: games, and one shouldn't put too much expectations on it.

Evolution and progress are 2 things: evolution means changing, progress means changing for better. I think that technology progressed a lot, but gameplay and enjoyability just evolved.
And like anything with evolution, when things changes, you either adapt or retire.

Before, there was a lot of crapy games and a few that standed out (the ones that we remember). I think it's probably about the same nowadays, but when a modern game stand out, it is indeed a high quality game because it is a good game that benefits of all of what modern technology has to offer. But it doesn't stand out from other modern game because of technology but because it is a good game. Much like before...
 

Tai_MT

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
5,454
Reaction score
4,823
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
@Touchfuzzy

I'm a casual observer and player of video games. If I haven't heard of it, it's likely because the only way anyone knew about it was to be following it from the start.

Let's see... what advertising am I ever exposed to?

Ah, the 15 second adverts on YouTube. Yep, that's it. I don't watch TV (because why pay for something you can get for free, or far cheaper, without commercials). I don't visit video game websites (because, honestly, I don't trust mainstream reviewers at all, especially since there's at least one new story every year about how games journalists are just terrible at their jobs and don't even play video games... or have an overwhelming urge to politicize everything... so why follow any mainstream video game website?).

So, how do I hear about new games?

1. Browse Steam.
2. My friends tell me about it.
3. There happens to be a 15 second advert about a game on YouTube that actually catches my interest.
4. Someone on YouTube reviews the game or plays it.
5. Browsing the "e-shop" of a console.

So... yeah. Never heard much about the PS4 spider man game. Because... well... I don't waste my time on websites that detail amount of sales. I tend to rely on what consumers are telling me, rather than what businesses are telling me. Plus, if you really want to go into "units sold!" for justifying whether or not someone lives under a rock...

I could probably name you about 15 games you've never heard of that are free games which have been downloaded thousands of times and accuse you of living under a rock as well.

Put simply, I care about the product from the point of view of a consumer. Not from the point of view of the company or the business (and the game journalists who help get this point of view across on their websites).

I've heard of Nier, but all I heard was, "It's a good game". Trailer didn't look interesting, told me nothing, gameplay looked mediocre... looked like the last 100 games I ever played... so I never picked it up. I heard of Spiderman, but never heard a single person online talking about it until you. I mean, if we're going just based on "copies sold" as a measurement of quality... or even a measurement of whether people even played the game... Gotta say your argument is flawed. I mean, I could throw Twilight or Destiny at you if we're going for "argument from popularity". I could also argue that while numbers indicate sales, they do not indicate returns... nor how many people quit playing before even finishing the game.

This is why I look for what CONSUMERS are saying and not NEWS OUTLETS or BUSINESS REPORTS.

You've got this really weird habit of just "gatekeeping" as a means of winning a debate. I'm more than happy to debate the points of video games and our personal biases... but I do grow rather weary of having arguments attacked on the basis of "you haven't played X, so what you said is invalid".

It's worth remembering that there are three kinds of lies.

"Lies. Dang Lies. And Statistics."
 

Touchfuzzy

Rantagonist
Staff member
Lead Eagle
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
7,232
Reaction score
8,734
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMZ
Are you ever capable of admitting you are wrong?

You seemed to have glossed over that not only did Spider-Man sell 13 million copies, it was also a success with both critics and audiences, with a meta critic score of 87/100, and a user score of 8.6/10. The fact that you didn't hear much about it probably has more to do with your social circles than the idea that "no one was talking about it".

You basically said to my comment on the game that "Never really heard any rave reviews about it, so I'm going to guess you're one of the minority who enjoyed it (or played it)", which is 100% factually wrong. You were the one who brought up popularity, yet somehow when I point out that it was an incredibly popular game, you are now saying "well popularity doesn't meaaaan anything".

It got rave reviews from both critics and gamers. It sold 13 million copies. This was not a minor hit. This was a major hit game.

Nier Automata was also a critical success and had an 8.9 user score. On top of the you know, 4 million+ sales.

So no, you were just wrong. 100% wrong. These were not games that "the minority enjoyed it (or played it)".

And on the whole bit about "well you haven't played X so your opinion is invalid" that has zero to do with what I'm saying. When you are actively saying "Well I don't much pay attention to modern games" and you know next to nothing about major hit games that were incredibly loved by both critics and gamers, then yeah, I think your opinion on modern games has some holes in it.

Also, whether it is a statement of quality, a game doesn't get 13 MILLION SALES if very few people liked or talked about it. Which is what I was responding to. Your statement that no one liked it or talked about it just because you personally never heard much about it.
 

bgillisp

Global Moderators
Global Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
13,429
Reaction score
14,163
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMVXA
One thing to remember though is it is possible to dislike something others like. I myself didn't like Pillars of Eternity as the plot felt disconnected, the skills felt like D and D reskinned, and some of the game mechanics were bad IMO. However, I know others feel differently about it.

Likewise, one of the games I liked a lot from 2000ish era was panned by about everyone else.

No matter what everyone else is saying you will have some differences in taste.

BTW @Touchfuzzy I read that Pillars of Eternity 2 was not a success for the developer as the sales were below what they wanted or needed. But that could be a case of too high expectations as too many big games seem to expect everyone and their grandma plays it. For example the Tomb Raider reboot was seen as a flop by Square with 3.4 million copies which lead to a Jim Sterling video of him ripping them for too high expectations.

@Tai_MT : I think the issue is the Spiderman game wasn't marketed much here in the midwest of the US, as I didn't recall hearing much about it either. That's because honestly we're seen as a small audience so some copmanies don't even bother trying to reach us as they see it as not worth the investment.
 

Touchfuzzy

Rantagonist
Staff member
Lead Eagle
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
7,232
Reaction score
8,734
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMZ
This is true. Personal taste always comes into it. (I did like Pillars of Eternity 2, but I can see why some people wouldn't. Hell I have a hard time playing games like that nowadays to be honest)

Also, I really like the original Nier and it did garbage review wise when it released. Still my favorite game of all time (and honestly some of the complaints about it aren't untrue, the combat is kind of meh, and it has a lot of fetch quests). Though it has become a cult hit over the years.

I think my problem comes into when people try to use their personal taste to declare objective quality. This idea that there is some kind of objective truth to design, rather than "this design works well for a specific type of player". I mean, there are some objectively bad designs, but they aren't as common as people think. (I think Russian Roulette for instance, a game that has the potential to literally kill a player, is an objectively bad design. For a more serious example: Superman for the n64 was a bad design because it didn't actually do what it set out to do.)
 

bgillisp

Global Moderators
Global Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
13,429
Reaction score
14,163
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMVXA
True. Which is why I try to be specific on why I don't like a game or think it is just average too. For instance, I'm trying to play through FF12 right now, and the constant grinding for LP, G or items is making me want to do anything else but play that game, as it feels like unnecessary padding. So much so I call it Final Grind.

Edit: @Tai_MT : One thing we all need to remember is the average video game is marketed to the under 25 group. I'm not in that age group anymore. If you aren't either, you are not the intended audience for most games. So some games I just pass on as I know I'm not who it is meant for, and play other things.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 4)

Latest Threads

Latest Profile Posts

I think in the pursuit of making the game look and sound custom, we never really start making a game. Finish the game first using all necessary plugins (with placeholder assets), then replace it with the real ones.

I haven't finished a game, but I try this method. Progress seems to be faster. :D
Every now and then I think about all the things I need in my project, and get overwhelmed. Just focus on your tilesets, me. You can't build your maps without 'em!
If a picture speaks 1000 words, how many pictures does a video speak??
I don't really get the "Pass Interference" Flag in (American) Football. Aren't you SUPPOSED to interfere with passes in Defense?? What exactly is the threshold that warrants a Flag?
TS Zeta.. blow your ass east... I cant take a round 3.

Forum statistics

Threads
104,431
Messages
1,006,314
Members
135,955
Latest member
Zhainong
Top