ZebMacahan
Regular
Is this something that has been added after player feedback, or is the they have designed their games from the start?
Its not just me, games used to be better
- Thread starter ZebMacahan
- Start date
Is this something that has been added after player feedback, or is the they have designed their games from the start?
I think one of the problem is unfortunately with game media. For example, I recently read on a review of Monster Hunter: Wilds somehow criticizing the game as "too short" while stating the reviewer spent more than 50 hours on the main campaign. How does that make sense is beyond me. From my own experience this is a game with very few filler, and yet are criticized by some as too short. No wonder why many game developers feel the need to put in boring fillers.
Yes. I thinking more that a larger proportion of games are looking at the 'power fantasy' trip, or not even that. Just more more more with no focus on the gameplay.
D2 did hordes of monsters. As did Gauntlet. But there were other games where the gameplay mattered more than the levelling. These days, every ARGP feels like its all about the numbers, the skills and gear to max those numbers to mash monsters as fast as possible. I guess at the other end of the spectrum you have maybe a Souls-like, but I'm not feeling a middle ground.
But the point is more about the focus of the developer, and the marketing. The significant amount of attention given to presenting the store and the things you can buy, over the gameplay elements (of which there's typical none beyond the most basic movement). There's a significant amount of the VS-style lottery upgrades - pick one of three options. In any genre people can squeeze it into.
To be fair, this is still a small part of the totality of submission. There are plenty of Metroidvanians, farm games, pixel platformers. But I am noticing the beginner level content is fitting a different style where it's all about the stuff, not the gameplay. Contrast that with the Flash games of yore, the democratisation of gaming included Doom clones and Mario clones and whatever else clones, but the games were all about the gameplay. If someone set out to make a Frogger-type game, they did so thinking about gameplay variations on Frogger, and not just Frogger but with 1000 skins and ridiculous power-ups for smashing through cars on the same 'hop a lane' mechanic. I feel that evolution of ideas is lessened.
However, that could just be a diluting. It might be that the amount of originality is the same, but there are far more games made by far more people just repeating stuff they've seen.
From the start. A new developer sets out to create a game, gets a basic movement and shoot template, and piles on the upgrades and visuals and skins.
Season 8 of Diablo IV will see a slower levelling system introduced in the first 25 levels so that players feel like they're progressing.
Legendary drop rates will also be reduced in the early levels, so players will have to make do with the items they have. The endgame will be adjusted because Blizzard has noticed that 50% of players reached the highest difficulty level in half the time compared to the previous season.
The final bosses will not be "loot piñatas", but will be redesigned and offer a greater challenge.
www.polygon.com
Legendary drop rates will also be reduced in the early levels, so players will have to make do with the items they have. The endgame will be adjusted because Blizzard has noticed that 50% of players reached the highest difficulty level in half the time compared to the previous season.
The final bosses will not be "loot piñatas", but will be redesigned and offer a greater challenge.
Blizzard admits Diablo 4 was too easy, plans to crank the difficulty up next season
Players were slaying too many demons
www.polygon.com
An illustration I feel. This one just dropped on r/playmygame
wygralem.itch.io
It's completely barebones stats. It's, AFAICT, an autobattler, and the developer has put in lots of work on stats and numbers. You can see the game here is just a spreadsheet. That's how this genre is, of course, but for me it's telling that the progress of this game starts with all the numbers, and none of the game. A tutorial wasn't included. They added some basic textbox explanation. There's no visuals. There's no story. There's no obvious agency or explanation of skills.
An alternative development approach would have been an autobattler with some levelling, then to introduce items and upgrades and stuff. Have a small, quality game, and make it broader. But here the design is as broad as possible and then maybe extend it.
I think this mentality behind game design is now fashionable and affecting game dev across all levels. You need countless choices and combinations, and that's it. That's what makes a game. A limitless supply of skills and items and stats (adjustable for varying genres) and that's your 'game' sorted.
Wave Offense 3 (Web) by Wygralem
wygralem.itch.io
It's completely barebones stats. It's, AFAICT, an autobattler, and the developer has put in lots of work on stats and numbers. You can see the game here is just a spreadsheet. That's how this genre is, of course, but for me it's telling that the progress of this game starts with all the numbers, and none of the game. A tutorial wasn't included. They added some basic textbox explanation. There's no visuals. There's no story. There's no obvious agency or explanation of skills.
An alternative development approach would have been an autobattler with some levelling, then to introduce items and upgrades and stuff. Have a small, quality game, and make it broader. But here the design is as broad as possible and then maybe extend it.
I think this mentality behind game design is now fashionable and affecting game dev across all levels. You need countless choices and combinations, and that's it. That's what makes a game. A limitless supply of skills and items and stats (adjustable for varying genres) and that's your 'game' sorted.
“Games Used to Be Better”—Or Did They?
It’s a common sentiment: “Games used to be better.” We hear it all the time, especially from those who grew up in the golden ages of gaming—whether that’s the 8-bit era, the PS2 generation, or the early days of online multiplayer. But is this nostalgia, or is there truth to it?
In many ways, games are objectively better today. They have richer stories, more immersive worlds, smarter AI, and more engaging mechanics. Yet, despite all these advancements, they seem to leave a weaker impact. Why? It’s not that games have lost their magic—it’s that digitalization has changed the way we experience them.
The Problem Isn’t Games—It’s How We Consume Them
The way we interact with entertainment has fundamentally shifted. Before, playing a new game was an event. You had to physically go to a store, buy a boxed copy, and maybe even read the manual on the way home. The anticipation was part of the experience. Today, you can buy, download, and start playing a new game in minutes. The process is effortless—but also forgettable.
The internet has also diluted the “wow” factor. When a game was mysterious, we had to discover its secrets ourselves. Now, everything is pre-analyzed, spoiled, or optimized before we even touch the controller. Reviews, walkthroughs, and tier lists tell us what’s “best” before we’ve even had a chance to form our own opinions.
Abundance Lowers Impact
There was a time when we got one or two new games a year, and we played them to death. Now, with Game Pass, PS Plus, and endless Steam sales, we have a backlog so massive that no single game gets the attention it deserves. Even the best games get lost in the noise.
Live-service models and constant updates mean we rarely get finished games. Instead of polished, complete experiences, we get evolving products—often excellent, but never quite the “definitive” version.
Games Are Better—We Just Feel Less
It’s not that games have lost their quality; it’s that our digital lifestyles have changed how we engage with them. Instant access, constant updates, and an oversaturation of content make it harder for any one game to stand out.
The next time you catch yourself thinking, “Games used to be better,” ask yourself: Or did they just feel more special? Maybe the challenge isn’t making better games—it’s learning how to appreciate them again.
It’s a common sentiment: “Games used to be better.” We hear it all the time, especially from those who grew up in the golden ages of gaming—whether that’s the 8-bit era, the PS2 generation, or the early days of online multiplayer. But is this nostalgia, or is there truth to it?
In many ways, games are objectively better today. They have richer stories, more immersive worlds, smarter AI, and more engaging mechanics. Yet, despite all these advancements, they seem to leave a weaker impact. Why? It’s not that games have lost their magic—it’s that digitalization has changed the way we experience them.
The Problem Isn’t Games—It’s How We Consume Them
The way we interact with entertainment has fundamentally shifted. Before, playing a new game was an event. You had to physically go to a store, buy a boxed copy, and maybe even read the manual on the way home. The anticipation was part of the experience. Today, you can buy, download, and start playing a new game in minutes. The process is effortless—but also forgettable.
The internet has also diluted the “wow” factor. When a game was mysterious, we had to discover its secrets ourselves. Now, everything is pre-analyzed, spoiled, or optimized before we even touch the controller. Reviews, walkthroughs, and tier lists tell us what’s “best” before we’ve even had a chance to form our own opinions.
Abundance Lowers Impact
There was a time when we got one or two new games a year, and we played them to death. Now, with Game Pass, PS Plus, and endless Steam sales, we have a backlog so massive that no single game gets the attention it deserves. Even the best games get lost in the noise.
Live-service models and constant updates mean we rarely get finished games. Instead of polished, complete experiences, we get evolving products—often excellent, but never quite the “definitive” version.
Games Are Better—We Just Feel Less
It’s not that games have lost their quality; it’s that our digital lifestyles have changed how we engage with them. Instant access, constant updates, and an oversaturation of content make it harder for any one game to stand out.
The next time you catch yourself thinking, “Games used to be better,” ask yourself: Or did they just feel more special? Maybe the challenge isn’t making better games—it’s learning how to appreciate them again.
That, and the fact that, the new generations will inevitably say the same about future games...
It's like Star Wars.
Original trilogy generation didn't like Ep 1-3.
The kids that saw those movies at the theater on the other hand, love them, and, surprise surprise, don't like the new ones.
In my opinion, it's us, not the games/movies etc.
It's like Star Wars.
Original trilogy generation didn't like Ep 1-3.
The kids that saw those movies at the theater on the other hand, love them, and, surprise surprise, don't like the new ones.
In my opinion, it's us, not the games/movies etc.
It's true. Kids today are going to regard [Random Youtuber] as one of the greatest entertainers of this time in 20-30 years. Some mumble rapper is going to be regarded like the Beatles. Jake Paul will be these kid Ali.
There's an interesting point here though in that it somewhat appears as though the modern era forsakes past greats, having a much shorter scope. This came up in conversation with a university student actress/dancer who had never heard of Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers. I know of them despite predating me by generations because they are fundamental to the development of the art. Yet modern awareness seems to not look further than contemporaries. Whether you listened to the Beatles or not, you knew of them, but modern kids don't.
In short, games might literally be worse now but modern audiences won't consider them as such because they know no different. Their universe will consist only of their experiences and that will set their baseline for what's good or not. And with that attitude, if it exists, content can get more and more watered down knowing that future audiences won't mind because they don't know any different.
I actually found this to be true in the late 80's I was talking to a kid and shocked to discover he had never heard of the Beatles and this was in Liverpool
Games do not gave more engaging mechanics. Absolutely not. Gameplay agency has cratered in the last 2 decades.
They absolutely do. Of course it varies from game to game and for sure you can find great games from 20 years ago but games like split second, Elden ring and many others are proof of that.
Games like Unreal Tournament 2004, Quake 3 Arena, Starcraft and lots of others have more engaging mechanics than any remotely recent game. They offered a level of control over your outcomes that today’s developers couldn't even dream of thinking up.
I Think having the ability to compare with a previous experience plays a major role. If they serve you something lesser but is the only thing you have experienced you will enjoy it.
In the case of Star Wars, the original was a magical Sci Fi world that is aware people know nothing about and it is slowly revealing itself. And that kept us glued.
The newer movies were taking into consideration that the world is a known quantity. Hence the plotline is diluted and is becoming less and less interesting.
It is one of the reasons why MGS4's story was lacklaster, as it made a plot Salad of every game that came before it.
When a movie or game is newly created it opens up a great opportunity for the creator to do and introduce new things so they potentially can have more impact and thus are profound. The later movies and games are repeating what their predecessors did to maintain relevance and thus are less impactful.
Death Stranding was profound. But the more they will keep bringing sequels the more profanity is lost. They will be extensions of the original source but not an introduction to something we never saw before
arandomguy
Veteran
A part of this issue that gives this impression is people are only selectively remembering the best experiences and games from the past other then some very notorious failures.
For everyone that thinks everything in the past was so rosy you should actually go back and look at the release lists and articles of what was being hyped and realize just how much forgettable to junk was actually released.
Even quite a few of the what would be considered bad/forgettable games nowadays have their own cult following pushing them as something they weren't. I don't want to side track down that road but like C&C Renegade for instance (just off my head since I posted in that thread on here somewhat recently), that would be the type of high profile game people would be trashing nowadays but you'd think it was some sort of hidden gem from yesteryear with some of the cult nostalgia.
Not to mention a lot of circular history rehashing itself. Online GaaS games today and the hysteria over them displacing everything from the market started happening way back once broadband started going into homes. Do people not remember the MMORPG wave for instance? Bringing up games like Quake 3 and UT is also interesting as those had no story driven SP component and were primarily MP driven. Starcraft's legacy is primarily driven by it's online component.
I'm also not sure where this "agency" issue is about. E-sports and competitive gaming is much bigger (including mainstream interest) than in the dawning days of UT/Quake/Starcraft. If anything gaming is more player agency driven now, as there is a large audience that primarily and/or only cares about competitive gaming over any type of crafted/curated developer driven SP game.
Last edited:
arandomguy
Veteran
We already have that same phenomena in gaming.
Take Battlefield for instance with the upcoming game in development you're seeing some commentary of returning to the good old days of Battlefield 3, while I remember when that came out there was push back on how it wasn't Battlefield 2.
I'm guessing if you asked many other long running series or genres what the "peak" past was you're going to get different answers now.
The thing is, they are not worse, the same way the Beatles were not worse than the music that came before them, regardless of what our grandparents would tell our parents.
Some might not be to our preference, most are not intended for us anyway, (the same way our grandparents were not the "target audience" for the Beatles).
Thinking out loud,
Art is cyclical by nature, and at some point what was considered old will come to the forefront again, either in its pure form, or in a form of fusion to take something else forward.
Because of the nature of the internet and the excess of information, many genres across all forms of art, are experiencing a revival of sorts, (even for that infant we call video games) there is "boomer shooters".
Video games (relatively to anything else) are so new of an art form.
They certainly need more time and I personally like to see their future in an optimistic way.
Can you please define that term?
Because in my mind, (and I might be interpreting the term wrongly) games never really did have any agency.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
