The question is whether or not the negative trends as you perceive them are simply a function of your subjective tastes. There are certain things that are arguably obnoxious like micro transactions yet millions of people spend money on them every day. So are micro transactions bad or am I just old fashioned?
Its not just me, games used to be better
- Thread starter ZebMacahan
- Start date
The question is whether or not the negative trends as you perceive them are simply a function of your subjective tastes. There are certain things that are arguably obnoxious like micro transactions yet millions of people spend money on them every day. So are micro transactions bad or am I just old fashioned?
The eternal question is the eternal answer. "What about both, same time?"
Millions enjoy alcohol, drugs, fast food, scrolling endlessly on social media and watching porn too. I suppose that's a modern taste I need to indulge in to be modern? I mean...how is "enjoyment" even defined in this case?
Lol alcohol, drugs and porn are ancient past times though.
I think games have gotten better overall
knowing fully well that a 10 year old boy today will think games are even more awesome than I did when I was 10. Graphics, animation and physics aside the storytelling, music, scope, artwork have all improved. Control schemes have improved. Social capabilities have improved.
Battlefield BC2 is probably the highlight of my gaming experience and I wouldn’t dream of ruining my nostalgia by trying to play it today.
Ah yes the quantum physics of gaming; is neither and both at the same, depends if observer (or rather consumer) is involved.
More depends which observer is observing. If you run a GaaS with megabucks from MTs, you won't be thinking them bad, and presumably neither will your audience who are buying them. If you used to enjoy MT free MP gaming where the game was pure and 100% about the gameplay, and now lament that being watered down for constant Meta shifts and cosmetics, you'd probably consider them bad.
Well sometimes a "change" can be seen as a negative trend to some. For example, when World of Warcraft introduced party finders (to find random players into a party), it's seen by many players as a convenient feature. However, some players do believe it's a negative trend because it can impact the organic formed community negatively, as people just match with random players and no longer care that much about their own reputation, which is important when a party has to be manually formed.
This change can be seen as part of a trend catering to the more "casual" players who don't really have much time playing the game, thus less cared about the in game community. On the other hand, "hardcore" players might see this as a "betrayal" to them as the game becoming more "casual". In a way Blizzard released the classic version because they found out that many want this, and some are already playing on private servers. Now there are multiple classic versions for each expansion pack.
This can be a dilemma to game designers. In a way they don't want to make the same game over and over again. On the other hand, making huge changes to a game can be very risky. In the case of Civilization series, they have this 1/3 rule where they keep 1/3 of a previous game (the good part), improve upon another 1/3 (the "need improvement" part), and do something completely new for the rest of 1/3. However, even with this conservative approach, each new version of Civilization are still very different and people have very strong views on them.
Dominik D
Regular
No, it isn't. As long as you divide gamers into some arbitrary buckets that let you add value judgement to differences, you're not talking about things being different, you're talking about things being different *and worse*.
There are many other fighting games than Tekken 8. You can even play Tekken 1-7 if you want to. I can understand that people might get upset when developers change mechanics in a live service game, but again, play something else then.
You have to have this notion that if something is called "Tekken" it has to fulfill whatever you have in your head. That is simply not the case. Just because Tekken 7 did everything for you does not mean Tekken 8 will.
I can complain all day that the Battlefield series went downhill after B4, someone else will say it was after BC2. All of us are subjectively right.
It is interesting to discuss how mechanics change and what impact they have on the game. The previous example of 3-second uninterruptible animations are something that takes away agency of the player, but at the same time gives players a pause to think about their strategy etc. You can look at it in many different ways.
But I stated they aren't worse.
What did you take the entirety of my post to mean? Your position only seems to fit what I said if you stop at the second sentence, where I'm expressing my personal opinion on finding modern games worse before going on to explain why that's just subjective.
Dominik D
Regular
I think we're in agreement here. That's why I stated that calling modern games "worse" is at the very least dishonest. Older games that are still relevant and aren't a complete jankfest typically fall into three categories: games that get a lot of community support (most common; games like Doom, Skyrim, or Grand Prix II), games that still get developer support (WoW, Warframe, CS), or unique games that were almost flawless when they released (probably RE4, Wind Waker, and Halo: CE fall in this category; YMMV).
We could entertain the idea that games in all three categories are less common these days. Maybe that's the case. But on average the quality of games, whether built by a team of 1500 or a team of 2, is much, much higher than it used to be. People are more experienced. Tools are better. Availability improved. Basically games are better by any conceivable metric other than "are they to my liking" (whoever "me" is).
Last edited:
Dominik D
Regular
Checked the first few pages and you're right, I completely misremembered that you agreed with the premise of the thread. My bad, apologies.
The general trend in MP games has been to make the player less in control of their outcomes via a variety of mechanics that directly interfere with their ability to interact with the avatar and/or create random variables that can not be anticipated or reacted to. We aren’t asking devs to keep making the same games. We just don’t want mechanics purposely designed to limit player agency.
Can you please provide examples of what you're talking about.
The types of examples I gave for Rivals are not unique or limited to that title.
You are proving my point. There is no point us having a discussion if you are trying to excuse broken games and cannot accept legitimate observations and complains. You just want people to shut up and you condescend who ever has a voice about it. People aren't complaining about change. They are complaining about broken gameplay and games that are more frustrating than fun
As for what is wrong with Tekken here is an example video of literally broken gameplay
Jack has an armor move that absorbs attacks which then can be followed by these options: a homing attack that controls sidestep, medium frame traps, high frame traps, and a high guard break that guarantees damage that will destroy you if you also happen to be near a wall.
There are so many options fast mix ups in Jacks repertoire during the armor stance that cover so many opponent defense options with very high reward that the skill of execution of high damage from Jack is super low, whilst the defense capability of the opponent requires much higher execution. To evade the guard break, it requires perfect frame sidestep or ducking, but good luck when there are ton of fast mixups including a mid homing. You block a guard break by accident you die. You don't sidestep perfectly you die. You duck and you get jacks new fast mid you die. You sidestep and get Jacks homing you die.
Basically make one or two mistakes and you are done for.
Jacks new combo takes more than half of the bar and once the opponent is on the floor after the attack, he can just spam stomp which stuns the opponent on the ground. No skill whatsoever, not much to defend against, not anything the opponent can do about it. It's broken.
Then Jack can just continue spamming brainless guessing 50/50s. Tekken is mostly a guessing game now.
Something similar also happens with Kuma. He has barely any weaknesses, he had overpowered high damaged attacks and frametraps and ultra high chip damage during heat mode that the opponent is punished for having good defense. His health is reduced to nothing for simply blocking.
Last edited:
And the way to get that is to buy and play those games that offer that. Producers will go where the market is.
It is incredibly interesting to discuss different game mechanics and other design choices. Your Tekken comments are a great example of this.
But you are not going to change the market by complaining. You can change the market by actively seeking out and paying for experiences that appeal more to you. If no one was playing and buying Tekken 8, and people instead played and bought other games, don't you think Namco would notice?
As I stated before, I can complain all day that there is no Killzone 5 that is exactly like Killzone 2 except for the things I would like to change, but isn't it better that I seek out other experiences that give me the same "rush"?
Similar threads
- Locked
