This thread about to get moved into General Discussion if it is more about sports than video games...
Its not just me, games used to be better
- Thread starter ZebMacahan
- Start date
He's a chill dude so he's not in TMZ and stuff. Also it's unclear how well he can speak English. He does interviews with a translator. IMO he can speak English and chooses not to so the media doesn't bother him.
My bad I saw this after posting
If not made by EA or Sony, they don't count.
(Seriously whatever happened to all the different sports games? All reduced to real-world franchises AFAICS with no scope for imagined teams. Sports games used to be better)
(Seriously whatever happened to all the different sports games? All reduced to real-world franchises AFAICS with no scope for imagined teams. Sports games used to be better)
that made me chuckle. There might be some truth to it.
Gotta say that while I'm older, I can still appreciate new games, some are very fun, like those I talk about in the co-op thread or others I started playing as of late. That doesn't translate to sports.
My comparison comes from the fact that older games used to be better, or they had some super original details you could exploit -some really famous speedruns appeared 'cos of that-. Many super original and fun games appeared. Now it's harder to be original, although it's not the fault of new games.
I don't want to go off-topic too much but when it comes to sports, the NBA of the past seemed better. No load management so the fans who are paying their hard earned money to watch their star don't find out they can't watch play their favourite player 'cos he is resting, a bit more varied play -too many drop step back and 3pts after that move), more recognisable stars overall -Shaq was fun, no fun players now, it's all about the social media-, you could play defence -unlike now- and there wasn't the stupid 3s rule, so players had to play harder to get points.
While my fav player is Michael Jordan and he will always be, I think the best NBA era was the 2000s, LOTS of talent appeared that decade after MJ retired.
Back to games, many games between 1990 and 2011 are some of the best games made to date. Even young people plays Tetris nowadays like that 13 y.o. that managed to beat the very last level of Tetris, and other games, like Mario 64 are still played by very young people to get the best speedrun of the game, some do that even blindfolded.
In addition, be it for how they were coded or other reasons, it was easier to mod old games. Mods from which some games were born, say DOTA and League of Legends.
Ninja Golf is on Atari 50, if that's what you are asking.
More there used to be several football games, several basketball games, etc. Now it seems there's only one, the official franchise one with the expensive licenses of real teams and players, and maybe a second-place also-ran. We had a few different footy games to play on PS1.
I knew what you were getting at, I just like to bring up Ninja Golf when the opportunity arises. There were sports licensing wars that culminated with companies securing exclusive league and player licenses for obscene amounts of money. This meant that smaller upshots were never going to be able to afford those licenses, and competitors were chose to stop making sports games as opposed to making a game that didn't feature real players or teams. There were efforts, though. Blitz The League and All Pro Football 2k8 come to mind in the American football sphere, but I don't think they ever sold that well.
These exclusive deals really ruined the sports market, IMHO. Not only did it have the obvious effect of shutting out the competition in the sports simulation segment, it also crushed the "just for fun" licensed sports category. Games like NFL Blitz, Red Card, MLB Slugfest just went away. But also the kids sports market, namely the Backyard Sports games, were no longer viable without the licenses. I don't know if having kids focused sports games has an effect on sports stars having less cultural crossover significance or not, but that might be a factor as well. Those games must have had an onboarding effect to sports and sports celebrities.
These exclusive deals really ruined the sports market, IMHO. Not only did it have the obvious effect of shutting out the competition in the sports simulation segment, it also crushed the "just for fun" licensed sports category. Games like NFL Blitz, Red Card, MLB Slugfest just went away. But also the kids sports market, namely the Backyard Sports games, were no longer viable without the licenses. I don't know if having kids focused sports games has an effect on sports stars having less cultural crossover significance or not, but that might be a factor as well. Those games must have had an onboarding effect to sports and sports celebrities.
Only because consumers were dumb enough to care more about the brands and identities than the game! They'd rather have a mediocre game with Sports Guy in it than a better game with a made up name.
I still think this is the crux of the whole "where have the good games gone" topic for this thread.
Consumers voted with their money, and now consumers get what they voted for. In this specific example, consumers elected to gratuitously fund those game franchises which were spending untold millions licensing team logos and team member likenesses, eschewing any actual novelty to the gameplay itself. In a generalized sence, the majority of paying consumers cared more about their avatar jersey and the likeness of their player to a real person, rather than having a compelling game experience. It's just sportsball, right? How many "novel" ways could there be to play? And now the games are shite, but hey the jerseys and the commentator voiceovers are great!!! Gee, where did the "good" games go?
Using a more broad example, we could talk about the Solid Modern Black Ops Brotherhood Medals Rehash Remastered Rejuvinated Regurgitated Special Edition 37, and then wonder why the same war-themed twitch shooter has the same gameplay it always has. The consumer told the game devs they wanted to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for "better graphics" and higher framerates and, of course, individual consumers voted to spend dozens of dollars (or more) on "skins." The votes have been cast, and now consumers get to reap what was sewn. Gee, where did the "good" games go?
Just as I mentioned on the first page: good games absolutely exist, even today, even right now as I'm typing this. If a consumer keeps voting against their own interests and wondering why it isn't working out, maybe the voter should be meta-cognitive enough to ask if THEY are the problem instead of the games they keep funding.
But nah, of course it's the games industry, not the consumers who keep funding it.
I agree with you except I don't give the games industry a pass the way you do
sure blame the people who bought the horse armour but Bethesda deserve some of the blame for introducing such a monstrosity in the first place
But nah, of course it's the crack dealers, not the addicts who keep funding them.
sure blame the people who bought the horse armour but Bethesda deserve some of the blame for introducing such a monstrosity in the first place
But nah, of course it's the crack dealers, not the addicts who keep funding them.
But therein lies the crux: there are no dealers if nobody is willing to buy.
When customers want to buy a thing, someone will find a way to sell it -- legal or not. When customers don't want a thing, the dealers go out of business (or get murdered by the mob for not paying their bills, lol...)
When customers want to buy a thing, someone will find a way to sell it -- legal or not. When customers don't want a thing, the dealers go out of business (or get murdered by the mob for not paying their bills, lol...)
Well, I never had the concept of a smartphone in my mind nor paying hundreds or thousands for a phone many years ago. It would have sounded ridiculous to me before they existed.
Now almost everyone has them, are overpaying and almost everyone is addicted to them.
Who would have imagined 100 years ago that people would ever have the need to debate and argue, like I am doing now about play things in a virtual writing space on a blinking screen trying to blame themselves for having the "real need" to buy things that don't exist nor do they improve their quality of life, when they could be having more meaningful time spending resources on traveling, meeting friends, developing artistic skills or whatnot?
Who would have thought 100 years ago that we needed so much, pieces of processed meat in buns and chemical ridden drinks that hit a dopamine rush until we become obese and unhealthy?
The market is not rational. If it was rational we would have been reaching closer to perfection and the majority of the junk products that exist would never have been produced in the first place.
Both of your replies are: people voting with their wallet.
If nobody was willing to buy smartphones, they wouldn't be here today. IF nobody was willing to buy drugs (and instead grew their own) then there wouldn't be an enormous network of illicit dealers.
Either way, people are buying both and are therefore voting with their wallet for the market to continue. This is the same argument as "overpriced low quality" GPUs and "overpriced low quality" cars and "overpriced low quality" watches and "overpriced low quality" handbags and "overpriced low quality" clothing and "overpriced low quality" video games. Any of the three of us could easily continue writing more examples from daily occurrences in our own lives even though I"m pretty sure we all three live in different countries.
Either customers finally figure out they're the enabler here, or the overpricing and low quality continues.
If nobody was willing to buy smartphones, they wouldn't be here today. IF nobody was willing to buy drugs (and instead grew their own) then there wouldn't be an enormous network of illicit dealers.
Either way, people are buying both and are therefore voting with their wallet for the market to continue. This is the same argument as "overpriced low quality" GPUs and "overpriced low quality" cars and "overpriced low quality" watches and "overpriced low quality" handbags and "overpriced low quality" clothing and "overpriced low quality" video games. Any of the three of us could easily continue writing more examples from daily occurrences in our own lives even though I"m pretty sure we all three live in different countries.
Either customers finally figure out they're the enabler here, or the overpricing and low quality continues.
Voting with your wallet means nothing when those getting your votes are exploiting animalistic impulses and assymetrical access to informetion to get you on their side. You didnt vote for anything. Your deep subsconcious impulses and lack of information did.
Impulses is what turns people into blind manipulated masses. You have no real control nor full agency. They have the control over you
Impulses is what turns people into blind manipulated masses. You have no real control nor full agency. They have the control over you
Being able to control your impulses and, instead, use higher brain functions to foster a thought is (ostensibly) what separates us from primates and other random animals. If a person is unable to disentangle themselves from their knee-jerk reactions, then how conscious are they really? I doubt we're ready to take this thread into the psychology of consciousness, however suffice it to say "I just followed my impulses" has never been an acceptable defense for bad actions in a court of law. There's a reason for that.
If people cannot control themselves (due to unwillingness or inabilithy) then they get what they ultimately deserve. And if enough people are unable to control themselves to form some sort of majority, then all of society gets to abide by the bad decisions. And at that point, what are you going to do? Sure, we can all complain on the internet, but it doesn't get far when a majority of society decides they want the impulsive decisions (however disingenuous or even harmful to themselves it might be) to win. This topic has some interesting parallels to the recent US elections, if I may say so.
The point remains: no matter if they're impulsive animals or just want to spend too much money on a shit game, gamers continue to spend too much money on shit games. There's literally zero incentive for those companies crapping out those shit games to change when the money continues to be made. And it's not like there's some other external mechanism (government, parliament, alien invasion, mobsters, cronies, whatever) to force those game manufacturers to change either.
Until the consumer changes behavior, the companies will continue to cater to the decisions of the masses. Companies follow the money, or they cease to exist.
If people cannot control themselves (due to unwillingness or inabilithy) then they get what they ultimately deserve. And if enough people are unable to control themselves to form some sort of majority, then all of society gets to abide by the bad decisions. And at that point, what are you going to do? Sure, we can all complain on the internet, but it doesn't get far when a majority of society decides they want the impulsive decisions (however disingenuous or even harmful to themselves it might be) to win. This topic has some interesting parallels to the recent US elections, if I may say so.
The point remains: no matter if they're impulsive animals or just want to spend too much money on a shit game, gamers continue to spend too much money on shit games. There's literally zero incentive for those companies crapping out those shit games to change when the money continues to be made. And it's not like there's some other external mechanism (government, parliament, alien invasion, mobsters, cronies, whatever) to force those game manufacturers to change either.
Until the consumer changes behavior, the companies will continue to cater to the decisions of the masses. Companies follow the money, or they cease to exist.
The difference between us is I apportion blame to both sides while you (and I see this attitude coming mainly from Americans) blame the victim (so to speak)
"people were prepared to buy horse armour so poor Bethesda just had no choice but to sell horse armour"
but apparently you think "I just satisfied market demand" is
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
