Its not just me, games used to be better

[tuna]

It may come off selfish but it makes perfect sense. These games are being developed and balanced around the bottom tier of gamers. Balance and game design hardly matters at this level. They just wanna unlock skins and see cool effects happen when they press buttons. You could design the gameplay around a higher tier without affecting the enjoyment of the lower tier. The reverse is not true.

Isn't the answer to this problem just to play another game that is designed the way you like?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I picked a small subset of games that I played for thousands of hours each at a high level.

Which already makes it a niche you are looking at. Maybe the changes at the high level that you hate are better for the mainstream?

They were not really simple. StarCraft in particular is one of the most complex games ever created.

StarCraft is only two players. We can use a simple mathematical representation of complexity to hopefully illustrate the point. In a two player game where each player has 30 actions they can perform, there's 30² total combinations, or 900 different AB action events to balance. In a hero shooter with 4 skills each and 10 players, that's 4^10 possible AB action events to balance, or 1,048,576.

It's arguable that the introduction of more skills, parameters and interaction types increases complexity exponentially to the point it's impossible to balance, and so the only solution is to keep changing the formula and the meta to keep the game fresh.

It can be argued that games should reduce the variables to make them more controllable, but that is not an argument for better games, but different games.

There are huge issues with the game design. A large number of abilities are focused on removing your opponent's ability to interact at all with the game. They basically turn off your opponent's M+KB for a predetermined amount of time. What's worse, these abilities can be chained together in such a manner that for some 10-15 seconds you are just sitting there twiddling your thumbs. These types of mechanics are simply trading one player's enjoyment for another's. It's weak and lazy game design.

That's one example though, and I dare say the most extreme one. But it can also be argued that other players need to take that into account. Or, it's a limited tactic that yes, it works, but how often and what are the characters like when they don't have that denial available? You could have a glass canon character who can kill without a counter, but if they have 5 minutes of downtime and die in one shot, that doesn't make them inherently OP.

It has no place in a competitive, PVP shooter. Less bad are the abilities where you press a single button to become invincible and deal massive damage over a given area. There is no counter play to many of these abilities other than another hero simply pressing a button to deny damage over a given area.

However, for those using the skill, they get a 'power trip'. And for those who can't counter, they have to avoid, which brings in planning and timing and awareness. Like the ridiculous shields in Apex, I thought they sucked arse, but a lot of players enjoyed it forcing them into a different play style. I say a lot - far fewer than were enjoying the when the skills were less extreme and the balance more tactical. But, again, that's a difference of taste and not objectively being better game design.

This is another example of weak design that trades enjoyment between players. For games with such large numbers of characters, it is a problem when at the highest levels of play you see the exact same heroes being used by almost everyone. Overwatch pro play for example was very often just a mirror matchup between teams.

Yep. However, as I argue at the start, the sheer complexity of so many characters and skills likely makes balance like it was in the era of Team Fortress 2 mathematically impossible. Google says Overwatch has 44 different characters. Each has, what 6 skills? 7? The sheer number of permutations makes balancing all combinations impossible.

It may come off selfish but it makes perfect sense. These games are being developed and balanced around the bottom tier of gamers.

Or the mainstream. Which doesn't mean they are bad design, but aimed at a different target. And that makes sense because these are businesses wanting to reach the broadest audience possible to maximise revenue.

Balance and game design hardly matters at this level. They just wanna unlock skins and see cool effects happen when they press buttons. You could design the gameplay around a higher tier without affecting the enjoyment of the lower tier. The reverse is not true.

And yet many attempts at this GaaS model fail, so I doubt it's as easy as you imagine. Putting it another way, if you just used random numbers for skills, would you have an engaging gameplay loop? I don't think you would. I think generally, these games come out okay-balanced for their audience. They then add more content that makes them impossible to balance, and at some point the devs kinda give up and just throw out more content.

But 1) that does not mean the game design is inherently bad so much as a victim of the business model and 2) that's only competitive MP games! There are many other types of games accused of being bad in this thread!! The generalisation is huge and sweeping. I guess for the purposes of discussion, we could pick one subset of games and determine if that is or isn't worse than it used to be. So take competitive MP games as a litmus test, if it can be proven they are worse, than perhaps all games are worse? But if it can be proven that MP games aren't worse, just different, than that puts a pin in the whole argument.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Isn't the answer to this problem just to play another game that is designed the way you like?

I can see the view from techuse's perspective as it's something I can get on board with, as I feel many other experienced gamers can, in that (some) modern games aren't to my tastes and I don't like how they are balanced nor monetised. I think modern MP games, of what I've seen, are worse than older games. However, I can't argue that they are objectively inferior or that the designers are lazy or incompetent. They are juggling far more variables than ever before and apparently targeting a different audience that spends as much time watching their game as they do playing it. So the games are being created with spectating in mind, not just direct play.

The market has shifted. the player base has shifted. If the design is engaging these players and making money from them, it's hard to argue that game design is objectively worse. I think to prove that, you'd have to get people who have grown up on modern games to try old games and tell you the old games are better.

 

[tuna]

The thing that upsets me from these discussions is that instead of searching out games (or other media) that has the qualities you look for people instead complain that popular games do not suit their tastes. I mean, there are other fighting games other than Tekken 8.

It is the same thing that people complain that Netflix is crap. Look beyond Netflix then!

 

[see colon]

In the same vain everything can be questioned and gaslighted.

Someone has to say this so it may as well be me.


Gaslighting isn't real.

The thing that upsets me from these discussions is that instead of searching out games (or other media) that has the qualities you look for people instead complain that popular games do not suit their tastes. I mean, there are other fighting games other than Tekken 8.

As a person who has played nearly every fighting game on SNES, Genesis, 3DO, PS1, Saturn and N64 - The era when fighting games were probably at their peak when compared to their financial percentage of the market -, most fighting games aren't that good. People remember games being better because they remember the good ones.

 

[techuse]

Isn't the answer to this problem just to play another game that is designed the way you like?

Outside of mil-sim games like Arma, which are far too slow paced for me, there are no options anymore.

StarCraft is only two players. We can use a simple mathematical representation of complexity to hopefully illustrate the point. In a two player game where each player has 30 actions they can perform, there's 30² total combinations, or 900 different AB action events to balance. In a hero shooter with 4 skills each and 10 players, that's 4^10 possible AB action events to balance, or 1,048,576.



That's one example though, and I dare say the most extreme one. But it can also be argued that other players need to take that into account. Or, it's a limited tactic that yes, it works, but how often and what are the characters like when they don't have that denial available? You could have a glass canon character who can kill without a counter, but if they have 5 minutes of downtime and die in one shot, that doesn't make them inherently OP.

However, for those using the skill, they get a 'power trip'. And for those who can't counter, they have to avoid, which brings in planning and timing and awareness. Like the ridiculous shields in Apex, I thought they sucked arse, but a lot of players enjoyed it forcing them into a different play style. I say a lot - far fewer than were enjoying the when the skills were less extreme and the balance more tactical. But, again, that's a difference of taste and not objectively being better game design.

Yep. However, as I argue at the start, the sheer complexity of so many characters and skills likely makes balance like it was in the era of Team Fortress 2 mathematically impossible. Google says Overwatch has 44 different characters. Each has, what 6 skills? 7? The sheer number of permutations makes balancing all combinations impossible.



And yet many attempts at this GaaS model fail, so I doubt it's as easy as you imagine. Putting it another way, if you just used random numbers for skills, would you have an engaging gameplay loop? I don't think you would. I think generally, these games come out okay-balanced for their audience. They then add more content that makes them impossible to balance, and at some point the devs kinda give up and just throw out more content.

But 1) that does not mean the game design is inherently bad so much as a victim of the business model and 2) that's only competitive MP games! There are many other types of games accused of being bad in this thread!! The generalisation is huge and sweeping. I guess for the purposes of discussion, we could pick one subset of games and determine if that is or isn't worse than it used to be. So take competitive MP games as a litmus test, if it can be proven they are worse, than perhaps all games are worse? But if it can be proven that MP games aren't worse, just different, than that puts a pin in the whole argument.

StarCraft is up to 8 players. There are thousands of actions available in StarCraft.

It is the worst example but these types of abilities are so prevalent you will be dealing with them many times over the course of a 5-10 minute round. It works the vast majority of the time because they are designed so avoidance is often impossible. Even more so at high levels of play where everyone has figured out how to make them nearly guaranteed successes. There are no glass canons in Rivals. There is a base level of HP that no one dips beneath, and the characters that SHOULD be the glass cannons are given automatic and often consistently regenerating temp health/shields for their dash in moves. It doesn't always translate into being OP in the sense they always win, but the balance of play and counter play is just destroyed.

Characters in all of these hero shooters typically have 1-3 abilities.

Those GaaS games aren't failing because they are targeting a higher skill target as no game has done this. I think if Rivals replaced all the individual abilities with an action button that did a random move related to the situation the hero is in, the vast majority of players wouldn't have any impact on their enjoyment.

Of course there is going to be an aspect of subjectivity, but I consider it objectively worse game design when you resort to trading enjoyment as the means to give players a power fantasy. I have been coming at it from an MP focused perspective as that has always been primarily what I play.

 

[Nesh]

Someone has to say this so it may as well be me.


Gaslighting isn't real.

That's your personal reality

 

[Nesh]

The thing that upsets me from these discussions is that instead of searching out games (or other media) that has the qualities you look for people instead complain that popular games do not suit their tastes. I mean, there are other fighting games other than Tekken 8.

It is the same thing that people complain that Netflix is crap. Look beyond Netflix then!

I don't get your argument either. People will bring multiple examples of things experienced that prove a point and your response is basically summed to "ignore it then". That's not a real argument. Tell me what the other options are and why they are better.

Popular games are the best examples because there were initial reasons why they became popular, they are often games that were building on a proven legacy that kept people interested for years if not decades, they contain a history of tweaks trends and changes and huge amounts of people experienced them, hence why they have statistically more value in a discussion.

I can speak of Tekken exactly because it's such a title, I was playing it since PS1, I know it inside out along with all the tweaks and changes it was historically receiving and can contrast before and after. Without a before and after it is impossible to talk about whether games are becoming better or worse.

In the case of fighting games like Tekken, very few have proven themselves all these years and each fighting game it's a sub genre that requires more playtime and dedication than your average gane. Every fighting game plays much more differently than how first person shooters play between each other. True 3D fighting games that contain decades of gameplay legacy building that were resilient in the test of time are scarce. There aren't really as many options. Soul Calibur committed suicide by doing similar mistakes. Dead or Alive killed itself in a similar fashion. MK and SF are 2D. There is only one 3D fighting franchise that at least in gameplay has the potential of a true substitute and that's Virtua Fighter and we haven't had a true sequel since the PS3 days

 

[tuna]

Outside of mil-sim games like Arma, which are far too slow paced for me, there are no options anymore.

So the claim is that there are no faster paced MP first person shooters that have a certain skill ceiling. I kind of doubt that, but I am not really into that scene. I mean, in the worst case you can join a server that still plays Quake 1?

 

[tuna]

I don't get your argument either. People will bring multiple examples of things experienced that prove a point and your response is basically summed to "ignore it then". That's not a real argument. Tell me what the other options are and why they are better.

....
There is only one 3D fighting franchise that at least in gameplay has the potential of a true substitute and that's Virtua Fighter and we haven't had a true sequel since the PS3 days

If you only look at traditional franchises and except them to be the same as before you will loose. But there are shitloads of games released any year and there are probably loads that should be interesting for you if you took the energy to investigate them. In the worst case you can continue playing the older games.

I could complain that Square does not make games like Chrono Trigger anymore, but I would probably* have a better time playing something like Sea of Stars instead.

*Or maybe not, I like complaining and arguing on forums, but you get the point I hope.

 

[Feral]

Now Silent Hill seemingly doesn't have any significance as a place, because the fog can find you anywhere. But this rule was never broken. At least not technically. It's only when games aren't in the titular town, it bothers people. Which I mean, yeah. You should probably name it something else.

The town always lured you to it, or the supernatural force entered other territories. But nobody thinks about that being a familiar staple of the franchise.

However, yes. The old games are unbeatable as a whole.

 

[Nesh]

If you only look at traditional franchises and except them to be the same as before you will loose. But there are shitloads of games released any year and there are probably loads that should be interesting for you if you took the energy to investigate them. In the worst case you can continue playing the older games.

I could complain that Square does not make games like Chrono Trigger anymore, but I would probably* have a better time playing something like Sea of Stars instead.

*Or maybe not, I like complaining and arguing on forums, but you get the point I hope.

The argument wasn't about keeping games the same as before. Some Changes are welcomed and some are not. Not all changes are either good or bad. Your argument treats all changes as equals.

Tons of games released mean nothing in itself. Some are good some are bad. What are the trends? How are games evolving in general and expect us to enjoy them?Show me the trend and provide me with alternatives.

Not all people are complaining for the sake of complaining.

Even people that might complain about Square Enix not making games like Chrono Trigger anymore are valid arguments to express and there is a possibility that these same people might be playing Sea of Stars and express their positive impressions at the same time.

Edit: The cancelled Silent Hills was a perfect example that people are open to change. Silent Hills gameplay concept looked completely different from any other Silent Hill that came before it. Even the most die hard fans received it super positively. People are open to change. The same die hard fans had mediocre opinion about Silent Hill Homecoming (me included) which in the surface was more of the same but more commercialized.

 

[Nesh]

Now Silent Hill seemingly doesn't have any significance as a place, because the fog can find you anywhere. But this rule was never broken. At least not technically. It's only when games aren't in the titular town, it bothers people. Which I mean, yeah. You should probably name it something else.

The town always lured you to it, or the supernatural force entered other territories. But nobody thinks about that being a familiar staple of the franchise.

However, yes. The old games are unbeatable as a whole.

I don't know how they will connect the new game to the franchise. It does look completely different even to the core DNA of the franchise besides being also another horror gane. If they were just trying to find a way to slap "Silent Hill" on a different game just for marketing purposes, they risk ruining an entire universe and making it harder to recover from it with the next sequels.

It is something that Resident Evil caused on to itself too. Resi4 was a great game but it was so different it laid out foundations that were hard to escape from, which was gradually turning the franchise into a mindless messy action game that barely had a relation to its former self, culminating to the disaster that was 6. Virus spreading to whole states, co existing living dead zombies and parasite zombies that are welding guns (since they didn't know which Resident Evil concept to follow anymore), human insect chimeras, monsters with fleshy chainsaws (they were apparently trying to slap in another chainsaw wielding enemy from 4 and 5 and didn't know how to make it appear new), a human biological Transformer turning from human to a huge ass Zombie Trex and back (????) among the ridiculousness. And protagonists that were now Chuck Norisses. Even as a fictional horror game nothing could make sense anymore. Where do you go from there? Capcom had to re invent the franchise with 7 again to escape from it and bring some life to it. But they seem to struggle with where to take it now

 

[tuna]

The argument wasn't about keeping games the same as before. Some Changes are welcomed and some are not. Not all changes are either good or bad. Your argument treats all changes as equals.

Tons of games released mean nothing in itself. Some are good some are bad. What are the trends? How are games evolving in general and expect us to enjoy them?Show me the trend and provide me with alternatives.

Not all people are complaining for the sake of complaining.

The argument I am making is that instead of actively seeking out games that appeal to yourself people just complain.

If people think Tekken 8 is a bad fighting game, instead of seeking out other games that you might think is better, people just complain.

 

[Dominik D]

Game developers today are so bereft of talent and creativity, they just leave game mechanics to sheer randomness because they don't know what fun actually is. It's also crazy to claim gameplay loops have become more complex.

It's crazy to claim that gameplay loops aren't more complex these days. You're using words you don't understand to prop up your stance which boils down to "I don't like games being produced today therefore they are bad and people making them are stupid".

I can get on board with, as I feel many other experienced gamers can, in that (some) modern games aren't to my tastes and I don't like how they are balanced nor monetised.

WTH is "experienced gamer"? Both you and techuse go true Scotsman he's just more blunt about it.

Games these days tend to cater to broader audiences and tastes of grognards like myself aren't served as well as they used too. If I want something that tickles my fancy I go indie because I'm clearly not the target audience of AAA games anymore. Tough luck. Labeling this reality as producing worse games is intellectually dishonest at best.

 

[arandomguy]

Games these days tend to cater to broader audiences and tastes of grognards like myself aren't served as well as they used too. If I want something that tickles my fancy I go indie because I'm clearly not the target audience of AAA games anymore. Tough luck. Labeling this reality as producing worse games is intellectually dishonest at best.

What I've always disagreed with here is this focus on supposed "AAA" games in terms of relevance to gaming as whole. That classification is a relative one in terms of production value and cost but does it matter from a functional standpoint? Even indie games nowadays dwarf the production value of the AAA games of the past when anything that wasn't AAA was basically a janky production riddled mess that people just gave passes on if it served their niche tastes. I don't understand agree with this notion of focusing so much on how much the game cost to make as the most relevance to the player.

Then there's also the diminishing returns due to how we're plateauing in terms of acceptable production values. Games over the last 15 years (or even more) are all very playable and enjoyable if they cater to your tastes. This range wasn't always the case. Just using a specific example, since I've explored this, take the Civilization series. A lot of people have their favourites of each and if have one you can easily go back to as far as Civ III and it's still very playable nowadays, but if try to go back to something like Civ 1 well good luck with that (I tried to revisit for my nostalgia, just a complete poor QoL jankfest).

With that said this why I've always felt regardless of your tastes you have way more choices and are better served than the past. How far do people want to go here for the glorious past? I have feel like I have way more choices of what to play that I'd like compared to when I first started gaming in 90s and into the 2000s. I can play even a 10 year old game now and find it not dated, that for sure was not the case trying to play a 2005 game in 2015.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

WTH is "experienced gamer"? Both you and techuse go true Scotsman he's just more blunt about it.

Gamers with many years of experience as opposed to newer gamers with less experience of only more modern games.

Games these days tend to cater to broader audiences and tastes of grognards like myself aren't served as well as they used too. If I want something that tickles my fancy I go indie because I'm clearly not the target audience of AAA games anymore. Tough luck. Labeling this reality as producing worse games is intellectually dishonest at best.

Isn't that exactly what I said in the rest of my post?

 

[Nesh]

The argument I am making is that instead of actively seeking out games that appeal to yourself people just complain.

If people think Tekken 8 is a bad fighting game, instead of seeking out other games that you might think is better, people just complain.

Well find me alternatives to Tekken. There aren't any. Games like Tekken contain legacy and years of dedication and learning that millions of players have to throw away now. Why? Because the heads of development decided to over commercialize it and destroyed the gameplay. People have every justifiable reason to complain when a series they invested thousands of hours (sometimes even decades) on and paid money for, doesn't meet promised expectations all of the sudden. It's even worse when it receives updates that destroy it further. And they are justified more when they have no alternatives.

Your argument is asking people to just suck it up because hypothetically somewhere out there there must be some better perfect substitute for every game they bought and ended up being a disaster instead of what it was promised.

 

[pcchen]

Well find me alternatives to Tekken. There aren't any. Games like Tekken contain legacy and years of dedication and learning that millions of players have to throw away now. Why? Because the heads of development decided to over commercialize it and destroyed the gameplay. People have every justifiable reason to complain when a series they invested thousands of hours (sometimes even decades) on and paid money for, doesn't meet promised expectations all of the sudden. It's even worse when it receives updates that destroy it further. And they are justified more when they have no alternatives.

Your argument is asking people to just suck it up because hypothetically somewhere out there there must be some better perfect substitute for every game they bought and ended up being a disaster instead of what it was promised.

I think the question here would be if it's reasonable to ask a game developer to keep making "the same game" over and over for newer generations. In general, older games still work and if people like them, they can keep playing them without having to go for the newer ones. For example, if you don't like Civilization VII, you can keep playing Civilization VI or whatever version you prefer.
This is, in a sense, one argument against "forever games." For example, World of Warcraft had changed a lot since it's early days. If you love the old versions you had no choice but to adapt to the newer releases. That's probably why Blizzard released the "Classic" versions (!!) to cater to these players. However, not all game developers are willing or have resources to do this.
Because maintaining an old game is actually not free, as old games do not necessarily run well or even run on newer hardwares. The GoG model is one way, another way is remakes. Many remakes are proven to be successful, such as Starcraft and Diablo 2. I personally am not interested in playing Diablo 2 again, but I do love that the option is available.

 

[Nesh]

I think the question here would be if it's reasonable to ask a game developer to keep making "the same game" over and over for newer generations. In general, older games still work and if people like them, they can keep playing them without having to go for the newer ones. For example, if you don't like Civilization VII, you can keep playing Civilization VI or whatever version you prefer.
This is, in a sense, one argument against "forever games." For example, World of Warcraft had changed a lot since it's early days. If you love the old versions you had no choice but to adapt to the newer releases. That's probably why Blizzard released the "Classic" versions (!!) to cater to these players. However, not all game developers are willing or have resources to do this.
Because maintaining an old game is actually not free, as old games do not necessarily run well or even run on newer hardwares. The GoG model is one way, another way is remakes. Many remakes are proven to be successful, such as Starcraft and Diablo 2. I personally am not interested in playing Diablo 2 again, but I do love that the option is available.

Well I cannot speak about the games you mention since I never played them, so I can't extrapolate anything about the experience. But are we discussing about just "changes" or trends that affect negatively games?
I mean...if there are negative trends in the gaming industry that make the experience worse, we can still use the same argument that we can go play the previous games instead.