Stop putting things in my mouth. It has been made very clear to you that changes are welcome but game breaking changes are not. if you want to argue for the sake of arguing look somewhere else.
Its not just me, games used to be better
- Thread starter ZebMacahan
- Start date
Your previously stated definition of "game breaking" is entirely subjective, and is not representative of what others may consider the same. As such, take your own advice: if you're just looking to argue for the sake of arguing, look somewhere else.
Do you understand how antagonistic that sounds? I bet you hate it being said back to you, as well you should, and as well you should understand how assenine it is to say to someone else on this topic.
What we've just stumbled into here is why there is no universal definition of what makes a good game "good", and why this topic will forever be unanswerable, and yet still deserving of the conversation. I really couldn't possibly care less about the 37th incarnation of Battlefield or Call of Duty or Brothers in Arms or whatever -- those aren't good games to me anymore, they're just the same rehashed shit in my opinion. The best part about being human is we can all have our own opinions! And there will be other humans, even in this very thread, who vehemently disagree with me calling those games shit, and they will love and celebrate those games.
And you know what? They're not wrong. A shit game to me doesn't mean it's a shit game to someone else.
It's relevant in the sense that the very fact of human irrationality that has always existed and will always exist is ignored and we assume that whatever the market pays for or not is an objective measure of quality and what people need. What I like or not at a personal level doesn't affect this fact. I could be playing 18 hours WoW a day or I may be playing the guitar until my fingers bleed. I could be eating fast food 5 times a day or I could be consuming 100% organic raw food and avoid any enjoyment of taste. My personal profile is irrelevant. I am not the subject of the discussion. Hybris is ignoring the very manipulated and weak nature of the human condition and pretend everything is a matter of equal personal taste.
Sure. Objectively speaking then all games are of the same quality since there will always be someone liking some game whatever that is. Therefore let's lock the thread since it's meaningless, cancel all reviews and cancel all opinions since they are subjective.
In the case of Tekken the points I made are 100% based on objective observations on gameplay mechanics and that is shared across the board. Sure call that taste if you like and ignore them. There are only perfect games out there. Just different tastes.
That's not really what's being said. The issue is in the discussion of 'good/bad' which are relative metrics, like 'best'. What's the 'best' console? Different people will have different views. If you want to discuss that with a view to arriving at consensus, you need to nail down your criteria.
So, take Apex Legends, I can say it's worse now than at launch. There are millions of people who agree with me, and millions who disagree. If I identify what makes it worse - more random number involvement, less predictability, less long-term team tactics, reliance on Meta, whatever - then those people who agree and disagree over the idea of 'worse' can still at least arrive at consensus on whether my observations are right or not. We can identify if there is more random or not, or if tactics have reduced in importance. Those who prefer the game now might say that yes, I'm right, but they prefer the game now anywhere. So for them, it's not worse, but objectively, measured against a defined point of reference, we can at least discuss how the game varies and is worse in that regard, and how people feel about it.
If the idea of 'worse games' is to be considered for all games now as opposed to yesteryear, the reference metrics need to be identified first. But that's a big and complicated conversation that no-one really wants to get into, so we have a 'pub talk' of people just saying what they like and don't like in terms of good/bad/best/worst against their own measures which aren't necessarily being shared.
On your example for Tekken looking at Jack, I can agree that sounds broken when measured against the qualities of an expert fighter played at tournament level. But I can also argue that, for the low-tier game who just mashes buttons, they might love it. When my friends and I played Tekken back on PS2, we mashed buttons and had a great laugh. One mate just alternated Red and Blue of Bayek and always won. Another Rainbow Kicked on Marshall Law and won. There was no skill but plenty of entertainment. Different folk are looking for different things from games. So is Tekken 8 the game worse? No, it's only worse for some people. Okay, is it worse for more people than it isn't?
TL;DR:
So, take Apex Legends, I can say it's worse now than at launch. There are millions of people who agree with me, and millions who disagree. If I identify what makes it worse - more random number involvement, less predictability, less long-term team tactics, reliance on Meta, whatever - then those people who agree and disagree over the idea of 'worse' can still at least arrive at consensus on whether my observations are right or not. We can identify if there is more random or not, or if tactics have reduced in importance. Those who prefer the game now might say that yes, I'm right, but they prefer the game now anywhere. So for them, it's not worse, but objectively, measured against a defined point of reference, we can at least discuss how the game varies and is worse in that regard, and how people feel about it.
If the idea of 'worse games' is to be considered for all games now as opposed to yesteryear, the reference metrics need to be identified first. But that's a big and complicated conversation that no-one really wants to get into, so we have a 'pub talk' of people just saying what they like and don't like in terms of good/bad/best/worst against their own measures which aren't necessarily being shared.
On your example for Tekken looking at Jack, I can agree that sounds broken when measured against the qualities of an expert fighter played at tournament level. But I can also argue that, for the low-tier game who just mashes buttons, they might love it. When my friends and I played Tekken back on PS2, we mashed buttons and had a great laugh. One mate just alternated Red and Blue of Bayek and always won. Another Rainbow Kicked on Marshall Law and won. There was no skill but plenty of entertainment. Different folk are looking for different things from games. So is Tekken 8 the game worse? No, it's only worse for some people. Okay, is it worse for more people than it isn't?
TL;DR:
Let me put it this way. In the case of Tekken how you want to play it, is the matter of taste i.e play it just for the laughs, play it casually or actually learn it and play it competitively. Tekken offered something for everyone. One big aspect of the game, which is what kept it alive has been compromised. Now if you just want to play the game for the laughs once in a while and shelve it, that's not what kept the community of Tekken alive and thus the franchise. It was people who spend time with it. Not just professionals but also casuals and semi casuals included. The majority of people who spend time with it are not professionals. The broken mechanics are a source of frustration for all gaming profiles, minus of course those that don't care about the mechanics at all and want to mash, just as some people play Gran Turismo also for the laughs. There are those too. Both cases are disconnected from whether GT is a good sim or Tekken a good fighting game. But at this point their approach is not reflective of how good a game design is. Taste and good game design can be discussed as separate entities.
If we accept that human irrationality is a constant then it should have no unique bearing on modern day games right? Purchases and enjoyment of older games were subject to the same irrationality. So now you’re back to the same problem of having to objectively prove that modern games are somehow more dependent on irrationality to be enjoyed.
As Shifty said we would need some sort of rubric for evaluating games to have any chance of an objective debate. Then we would need to go back and evaluate old games without the rose tinted warmth of nostalgia. It’s an impossible task since everyone is going to care about different things and rate those things differently. The closest proxy is “professional” reviews and clearly there are still games being made that get top marks. So there’s no empirical data to support the idea that games are getting worse over time.
I hate to be that guy; I feel this line of conversation goes right back to my prior soapbox episode in this thread... People need to vote with their wallet to drive different outcomes.
If Tribe of Brothers Metal Duty Unlimited War Engine 2037 sells a hojillion copies at 80 dollars each, there's literally NOTHING you can do to prevent that game publisher from making another one. And when the successor Call of Metal Brotherhood Karate Ultimate Factions 2044 Remastered comes out next year with the same gameplay but a few new maps and a few upgraded textures, and it too sells one hojillion copies at 90 dollars each? Guess what's coming in the next year?
If people want "better" games, then they need to stop buying shit ones. It's easy to cry and whine and complain about how companies "need to do better". but if people stop buying, then the companies either go out of business or find something else to sell. That's it. There's nothing more complex to this formula. This literally applies to any saleable commodity good or service on the planet that isn't somehow otherwise propped up by a government.
Here's the rub, which is also how voting works in democratic countries: just because you voted for what you want doesn't mean you get it. If everyone else keeps buying Modern Infinite Honor Brutal Assault Raytraced edition and I hate that shit and never buy it? Welp, turns out I was out-voted. And it sucks, because I think those games are shit. As it turns out, too many other people like those games, and now more of them are being made. Can I convince those people to stop buying (what I think is) a shit game? Maybe, but probably not.
If Tribe of Brothers Metal Duty Unlimited War Engine 2037 sells a hojillion copies at 80 dollars each, there's literally NOTHING you can do to prevent that game publisher from making another one. And when the successor Call of Metal Brotherhood Karate Ultimate Factions 2044 Remastered comes out next year with the same gameplay but a few new maps and a few upgraded textures, and it too sells one hojillion copies at 90 dollars each? Guess what's coming in the next year?
If people want "better" games, then they need to stop buying shit ones. It's easy to cry and whine and complain about how companies "need to do better". but if people stop buying, then the companies either go out of business or find something else to sell. That's it. There's nothing more complex to this formula. This literally applies to any saleable commodity good or service on the planet that isn't somehow otherwise propped up by a government.
Here's the rub, which is also how voting works in democratic countries: just because you voted for what you want doesn't mean you get it. If everyone else keeps buying Modern Infinite Honor Brutal Assault Raytraced edition and I hate that shit and never buy it? Welp, turns out I was out-voted. And it sucks, because I think those games are shit. As it turns out, too many other people like those games, and now more of them are being made. Can I convince those people to stop buying (what I think is) a shit game? Maybe, but probably not.
Ahh, but that's the conversation! Everyone who wants these games to be different who is being outvoted has no option for change other than to express their opinion in the hopes of convincing others to side with them. Sometimes it goes on for 100+ years, saying you want something different when everyone else is happy with the status quo.
I don't think attempts to sway opinions should be stonewalled. Indeed, isn't that part of open democracy and free speech, that minority opinions can still be expressed and heard? So personally I'm all for voting with your wallet and complaining/debating in the hopes others will finally see sense and that there's better out there that they will prefer once they've experienced it.
So get on your soapbox and tell them Tribe of Brothers Metal Duty Unlimited War Engine 2037 is actually crap and if they try other games they'll realise that, and maybe they will and they'll stop buying it and some other, more appreciated game will get made? Because there are plenty of others advocating that Tribe of Brothers Metal Duty Unlimited War Engine 2037 is the best game ever, watch my stream and send me donations thank you very much, and as we've seen, just simply saying something over and over seems to manage to convince a bunch of people it's true. So throw your voice into the mix!
You're already preaching to the choir! And making up those names took me a solid handful of seconds each, lol...
Allow me to offer a different perspective, to stand on a different soapbox: while I recognize those games aren't for me, I actually do not truly believe them to be shit games. I possess enough metacognitive ability to realize that, while they aren't what I'm interested in, the simple fact of those games existence over decades clearly indicates mass appeal to a broad group of people. The same way a LOT of people bought and read copies of Fifty Shades of Gray! Personally, I'd rather gag on a dog turd than read any more than the first few pages I was dragged through, yet a lot of people read and apparently enjoyed it, which means it's not so easily dismissed as shit literature.
Soapbox: The populace at large needs to understand their opinions are not always shared, despite how strongly they hold those opinions. And for topics which have no method of proof pro or con (such as, is a game "good" or "bad" -- just like is a movie "good" or "bad", or a book) there is no source of authority to decide and decry that which is bad versus good. The best which could be asserted is: I, as an individual, do not enjoy a certain game, or a certain genre, or a certain topic. And I, as an individual, would prefer to see more games which included more of this, or that, or would play in this materially different way.
The title of this thread "games used to be better" is objectively a bad title, because there are thousands of examples of good games in existence today. Never in human history has there been such a plethora of options in entertainment, and some crank on the internet is going to tell me it's just all bad?
That speaks more about the person making the claim than it does the actual state of the industry.
/Soapbox
Last edited:
Potato Head
Newcomer
“In the first three months of 2025 alone, 1200 developers have lost their jobs, with cuts and closures at Freejam, Splash Damage, Piranha Games, Jar of Sparks, Ubisoft, ProbablyMonsters, Iron Galaxy, Sumo Group, Liquid Sword, NetEase Games, Toast Interactive, Night School Studio, Striking Distance, Until Dawn remake developers, Ballistic Moon, and - most recently - Eidos Montréal.”
"Australia's largest studio" PlaySide announces restructure and job cuts
PlaySide Studios is laying off an unspecified number of developers.
www.gamesindustry.biz
The entire industry collapsed in 1983. The claim was that it was an unprecedented pace of closures, and never such a large percentage of bad games.“In the first three months of 2025 alone, 1200 developers have lost their jobs, with cuts and closures at Freejam, Splash Damage, Piranha Games, Jar of Sparks, Ubisoft, ProbablyMonsters, Iron Galaxy, Sumo Group, Liquid Sword, NetEase Games, Toast Interactive, Night School Studio, Striking Distance, Until Dawn remake developers, Ballistic Moon, and - most recently - Eidos Montréal.”
"Australia's largest studio" PlaySide announces restructure and job cuts
PlaySide Studios is laying off an unspecified number of developers.
I would contend that we've had, proportional to the size of the industry, a larger series of closures. And that there was possibly a larger percentage of bad games released. I would also contend that many of those who lost their jobs, and I'm not trying to trivialize their struggles, but many of them found new jobs in the industry, where I don't believe that was the case in 1983, because there wasn't much of an industry left. And, that we are now seeing a market correction from the unprecedented growth we experienced during the global pandemic.
On the flip-side though, there clearly are such things as bad games and movies. Eye of Black Tiger is crap. Even if people bought it and enjoyed its jank, it's crap. We can objectively start pulling it apart for a quality analysis but it doesn't need that level of consideration because it's flat out bad in every way and everyone knows it. Plan 9 From Outer Space is also crap, even though some people love it.
Similarly, there are categorically good games even if one doesn't like them. I'm sure we all know of one critically acclaimed titles that we ourselves didn't get, but we can acknowledge the accomplishments.
So if we can identify the bottom and top ends of the quality spectrum just on basic intuition, we acknowledge there is this spectrum on to which games can be placed, and there the arguments arise!
Thinking about it, what makes EoBT or P9FOS terrible despite having their fans? I think because they failed to achieve their own goals. They did not set out to be janky messes. The creators didn't know how to execute the art well, produced what they did, and found an appreciative audience among a subset of most folk who rolled their eyes.
And proceeding from that, I guess the measure Nesh and Techuse et al are using are design choices from yesteryear and in saying 'games are bad', what they're really saying is execution of game design and balancing is failing to hit the standards from previous generations. The fact these games with these faults are reaching a wide audience doesn't make them good games in terms of implementation of the art, but can make them good, enjoyable products. And the 'bad' of the games is because the designers aren't setting out to redefine the gameplay and balance targets, but they are failing to achieve their intended aims yet finding commercial success anyway, so I guess giving up on those principles. Like a novelist who wants to write deep, engaging, philosophical stories but ends up churning out commercial hack-work to pay the bills. Their romantic novels might sell in droves, but the author themself will agree they aren't good works.
I can agree with some of what you said, however...
I have no idea what Eye of Black Tiger even is, and I haven't spent the 18 seconds of Google to go find out lol... For all I know, I might be one of those utter morons who likes it
Again, we're all entitled to our opinions, and we have to realize not everyone shares our view.
I mean, it's crap to you and to -- perhaps arguably? -- some segment of the "majority", yet people still like it. It's fair for you and for a majority of people to not like it, and you know what? I bet you didn't buy it or pay to see it, just like so many others did. It sounds like a whole lot of people voted with their wallets, as I described earlier, which probably means there isn't going to be another one. It still doesn't mean it's ubiquiteously crap, even if most people don't like it. Again, your opinions are valid to you, they aren't applicable to everyone.
I have no idea what Eye of Black Tiger even is, and I haven't spent the 18 seconds of Google to go find out lol... For all I know, I might be one of those utter morons who likes it
They don't have to be critically acclaimed IMO. There's plenty of games in the world I'm just not interested in, I find them dull, boring, unimaginative rehashes of things that have been done better in the past. The reality is, so much of what I don't like has also never been acclaimed by anyone, and yet is still enjoyed by enormous swaths of people. Do I pull out the Simpsons Super-Nintendo Chalmers meme where I suggest maybe I'm wrong, and then realize it just must be everyone ELSE who is wrong instead?
Alas, I do not believe we can. We have our own biases and preferences, and (in a sense) we're entitled to those as they're products of our collective lifelong experiences. But for soft topics like "what is good" there is no hard data, which means there's no logical method to conclude a definition. It just doesn't exist.
Do we know their intended targets? Have those targets been legitimately stated a such, outside of shit marketing speak like "OMG REVOLUTIONARY GAMEPLAY WAR TACTICS" for the umpteenth copy of their war re-enactment game that hasn't changed gameplay in the last 17 years? In most cases, profit is the ultimate target, and to attain that profitiability target, we would like to hope they employ new narratives, new gameplay mechanics, new something which makes us interested in buying it.
Again, we're all entitled to our opinions, and we have to realize not everyone shares our view.
But liking it doesn't mean you think it's good. People can like jank because it's funny that it's so bad. It's bad, everyone recognises it's bad, but it's liked. And that's the difference in the argument, that something being liked by people doesn't prove it's good, not even necessarily by the people who play it. I think everyone knows something they like that they don't class as good - a song or TV programme or game or some 'guilty secret' that you'd be embarrassed to share because you know it's tacky or cheesy and bad by artistic merit, but you love it anyway. Heck, you might have a picture from your 3 year old that's just squiggles, relatively poor for the average 3 year old, and yet you might love it. Loving it doesn't make it good.
No, but it's inferred. People aren't setting out to create jank unless they are. Ed Wood wanted to create high cinema, but he failed because he had no idea how to, only shot one take, had poor actors, etc. Whoever set out to make Life Of Black Tiger on PlayStation 4 wasn't thinking this:
It sold lots because it hit mainstream gaming media as the kind of talentless dross Sony was allowing on their closed platform which used to be incredibly hard to get onto and appealed as a parody. It's a bad game in every metric whether people like it or not. If you can look at that as a paid PS4 game and say, "it's not bad, it's just different," then this discussion is definitely over.
Last edited:
I regularly tell people I like things that I also don't find good, just like I'm always paying for non-elastic consumer goods (eg entertainment) that I just find patently bad! ( /s, if it wasn't obvious)
And yet, people are paying money to see it. They enjoy it! If they didn't enjoy it, they wouldn't pay money for it would they? We keep talking right past this point, why can't we dwell on that point?
Remember the time when I said people need to vote with their wallet? I remember it, it's just a few posts up from here. When enough people vote, decisions get made. If people keep buying it, more will come! That's the end of the discussion right there; it's no more complex than "Continue paying money, continuing getting that product." I'm not going to agree on anything beyond this point, this is how capitalism functions and is self-evident.
And since we aren't going to agree on a uniform definition of good or bad, let's tackle the original topic: somehow, someway, the OP thinks "games are worse" than they were. How does this align with "video cards are worse", or "CPUs are worse", or perhaps a better comparison: "books are worse." The statement is both completely impossible to be proven, and yet also fails the obvious gut-check: the litany of options, the litany of price points, the sheer numbers preclude any statement of "they're overwhelmingly bad."
Before the strawman is drawn: I'm not saying more means better, what I am saying is more means a significant increase in area under the bell curve, counting available the titles stretching between the infinite gray which exists between bad and good. All of this points to a fat hump-shaped middle, accounting for a LOT MORE "at least average if not good" games versus what was available in the years and decades past. If by no other reason than statistics, there are a metric shit-ton of good games in the world, whether you actually know about them or not.
Last edited:
People don’t pay money and enjoy discretionary purchases they don’t think are good. It’s an oxymoron. They may acknowledge it’s not good by some tangential standard e.g. Oscar worthy. But it’s certainly good by the metric that matters for the actual purchase e.g. entertainment value.
“Good” in this context means “buyer receives the expected value”. It’s not related to some arbitrary benchmark defined by others.
“Good” in this context means “buyer receives the expected value”. It’s not related to some arbitrary benchmark defined by others.
Agreed, and I think this correlates pretty well with "vote with your wallet." One of the very best things about Steam is being able to ask for refunds, which basically doesn't exist on any other platform -- or at least not in the incredibly easy way Steam provides them. I wish the ability to return games was ubiquitous, or at least better than it currently is, exactly for this reason.
Also, just like in democratic countries while voting for government officials, voting means your actions have consequences. If you willingly buy a game sight-unseen only later to discover you hate it? That seems like a decision which could've easily been made a day or three later to avoid such an outcome. Maybe not in every instance granted, sometimes games are good until they're not... But after having purchased a bad game, I wager (hope?) you're that much less likely to buy the successor!
There's no way to convince a company to stop making a game that continues to be profitable. That's it. If you think it's bad? Don't buy it, and hopefully you can convince others to do the same.
I don't think that's so absolute. People can engage in things that make them unhappy, but they still do it, like relationships and doom-scrolling, and people can and do buy things they regret. Particularly buying a game on PSN where there's no demo and no refund option, you might think a game looks entertaining only to find it's devoid of value for you but you're stuck with it. Someone dropping $10 on LoBT doesn't mean they see $10 of value in it, but more that they hoped to find $10 of value in it. In fact for many purchases, you don't really know what's it worth to you until you've bought it and used it, and which you decide if it was or wasn't a good purchase.
And people can and do delude themselves into accepting a choice they made rather than accepting they made a mistake (very much so in politics!) so even saying they like something, they might not.
This is why 'good' is a dumb word, and in school I'd press students to use a more descriptive word. We can ditch it entirely and replace it with "well crafted" and "entertaining" etc., communicating the base measure.
"Life of Black Tiger is an appallingly executed game devoid of technical merit, but entertaining to a niche audience that enjoyed its halo of social interactions and humour."
Not, "Life of Black Tiger is a bad game, but people bought it so it's a good game."
If we knew the context of the creator, we might even say it's a great achievement for someone in those circumstances. But it'd still a dreadful game by every measure of what makes a good game - art, animation, story, technical accomplishments, game design, balance, etc.!
There are objective ways in which we can measure parts of what makes a game.
A game that is good/mediocre/bad in terms of technology is one way. (Elder Ring is technologically mediocre, and in this forum, I believe most of us would agree).
How the controls feel, (mouse acceleration and a first person shooter for example).
How the gameplay systems interact with each other, etc etc.
Those are things most people that play games, can evaluate in a mostly objective manner.
And by mostly, I mean, that the opinions will not vary dramatically.
Is it Doom, or is it Fallout 3 when it comes to shooting guns?
A broken camera system in a third person game, doesn't leave a lot of room for debate.
A competent game, is a game that does well in most of those categories.
Then, there is the rest, that are subject to many variables, from what is popular at the time, to what an individual's preferences are.
Art direction is subjective.
There was nothing wrong with the new Dragon Age, it had a clear and consistent art direction, that simply didn't resonate with the audience.
Writing is subjective.
We all have preferences and tastes when it comes to the stories we like being told.
Game length is another thing that depends on a lot of things, and mainly I'd imagine, on circumstance.
I'd play a million Ubisoft open world games if I were in my teens.
Preferring Sifu's combat over Elden Ring (that's definitely me), is a matter of opinion and taste, nothing more.
To be clear, I'm not saying that, bad writing for example, doesn't exist.
I'm pretty sure though, that when you see it, you don't need a video essay to identify it, or a debate to make sure or convince anyone it is indeed bad.
Passable writing on the other hand is, and always has been, a lot more prevalent.
In my opinion, we have quite a few ways to objectively measure game quality.
A technically broken game, (Nesh's Tekken example), is what it is.
I don't play Tekken so I have no idea, but the way he describes it, the problem doesn't seem to be a matter of taste.
But the topic here has to do with games in general.
I would argue, that we have a lot more technically (and therefore objectively measurable) competent games than ever before.
A game that is good/mediocre/bad in terms of technology is one way. (Elder Ring is technologically mediocre, and in this forum, I believe most of us would agree).
How the controls feel, (mouse acceleration and a first person shooter for example).
How the gameplay systems interact with each other, etc etc.
Those are things most people that play games, can evaluate in a mostly objective manner.
And by mostly, I mean, that the opinions will not vary dramatically.
Is it Doom, or is it Fallout 3 when it comes to shooting guns?
A broken camera system in a third person game, doesn't leave a lot of room for debate.
A competent game, is a game that does well in most of those categories.
Then, there is the rest, that are subject to many variables, from what is popular at the time, to what an individual's preferences are.
Art direction is subjective.
There was nothing wrong with the new Dragon Age, it had a clear and consistent art direction, that simply didn't resonate with the audience.
Writing is subjective.
We all have preferences and tastes when it comes to the stories we like being told.
Game length is another thing that depends on a lot of things, and mainly I'd imagine, on circumstance.
I'd play a million Ubisoft open world games if I were in my teens.
Preferring Sifu's combat over Elden Ring (that's definitely me), is a matter of opinion and taste, nothing more.
To be clear, I'm not saying that, bad writing for example, doesn't exist.
I'm pretty sure though, that when you see it, you don't need a video essay to identify it, or a debate to make sure or convince anyone it is indeed bad.
Passable writing on the other hand is, and always has been, a lot more prevalent.
In my opinion, we have quite a few ways to objectively measure game quality.
A technically broken game, (Nesh's Tekken example), is what it is.
I don't play Tekken so I have no idea, but the way he describes it, the problem doesn't seem to be a matter of taste.
But the topic here has to do with games in general.
I would argue, that we have a lot more technically (and therefore objectively measurable) competent games than ever before.
Similar threads
- Locked
