Video Games sux

[REALちゅちゃしょん]

Why do the newer games suck so bad nowadays, like it feels like another mundane task only you don't get something in return. I mean back i the days it used to be fun, it was all about escaping the reality and become something else (like a superhero badass or something like that).
Now video gaming its going "too soft" nowadays (I won't get into details but yeah). Its like what Yusuf said in GTA Online "No jokes in nowadays" .

[Cksalzy]

What games are you playing? Video games dont sux, its just that the gaming industry has become overflooded with garbage that its harder to find good games. Indie games are the way to go. Il reccomend 5 games that innovate and prioritize fun and user experience over profit and DEI tactics.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1229490/ULTRAKILL/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/2379780/Balatro/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/108600/Project_Zomboid/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/2475490/Mouthwashing/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/2206270/Vampire_Hunters/

[SLAYER187]

Yup! most games today are bland repetitive and have no soul.

[Cksalzy]

Originally posted by JR APOCALYPSE aka Slayer187:

Yup! most games today are bland repetitive and have no soul.

I wouldn't say most. Its like some games are bland and repetitive and those ones do not represent the gaming industry as a whole

[Ogami]

Its two factors, at least for me:

1. We are getting older and its rarer and rarer that a video game does something new and exiting that you never experienced. At some point you know how everything goes and just updating the graphics each gen is not enough to keep interest.

2. There are much much MUCH more games nowadays. You get assaulted by an avalanche of new releases and that daily, its impossible to keep up and filter out the few worthwhile titles.
25 years ago you had like 5-10 game releases a MONTH, nowadays its more like 50 or so a day, especially on PC. So there are a lot of mediocre and just plain bad releases then in the past which colors your perception of gaming.

[Knee]

Originally posted by JR APOCALYPSE aka Slayer187:

Yup! most games today are bland repetitive and have no soul.

Every generation has bland games.

[-OrLoK- Слава Україн]

Originally posted by Knee:

Originally posted by JR APOCALYPSE aka Slayer187:

Yup! most games today are bland repetitive and have no soul.

Every generation has bland games.

agreed, I remember back in the mists of time when I spent a vast amount of (dads) cash on a really bad game which cost a fortune and I hardly touched but had begged and pleaded for ages for him to buy me.

I've still feel the guilt from that 40 years ago.

good games have always existed as have bad games.

some of my favourites of all time have recently been released.

I'm having oodles of fun, games that are "meh" to me i simply ignore.

[gwwak]

Originally posted by 君のあついお母さん:

Why do the newer games suck so bad nowadays, like it feels like another mundane task only you don't get something in return. I mean back i the days it used to be fun, it was all about escaping the reality and become something else (like a superhero badass or something like that).
Now video gaming its going "too soft" nowadays (I won't get into details but yeah). Its like what Yusuf said in GTA Online "No jokes in nowadays" .

Probably more of a Western dev issue. For some reason they want to shove real world politics in a preachy manner when people want to escape from that crap. Stick to Eastern developers. Eastern devs build games to appeal to their fans and thus are rewarded financially too.

[Paratech2008]

Home Alone NES...

Nintendo "quality"



E.T. Atari 2600...

Buried in a landfill.

Indiana Jones would've had to be bribed to dig that up and even Nazis wouldn't want them.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

Originally posted by Paratech2008:

Home Alone NES...

Nintendo "quality"

:shockedkitty:

E.T. Atari 2600...

Buried in a landfill.

Indiana Jones would've had to be bribed to dig that up and even Nazis wouldn't want them.

To be fair, E.T was given a five week development timeframe.....it was doomed before it started.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

Originally posted by Paratech2008:

E.T. Atari 2600...

Buried in a landfill.

Because they made a hundred times more cartridge than they could ever sell. Not because the game was low quality. If anything it was a high quality game but they immediately lost it by creating a very negative reaction and reputation around it. It was a marketing disaster, not a bad game due to gameplay or lack of fun.

I'm saying this because I personally played said game. From start to finish. I was there at the time, a fan of the movie the game was based on, and I know of what I am actually talking about. My suggestion to you would be to stop talking about things you clearly don't know about nor understand. It is not something which help driving a discussion forward.

[D. Flame]

Because what is being put out is currently being controlled by special interest groups that do not even purchase nor play games themselves. Groups literally on the record saying that they want to burn the industry to the ground. Groups that would rather focus on [redacted] rather than fun and engaging gameplay.

And since they are consultants, rather than employees, they can just laugh their way to the bank after the studio that they "helped" gets shuttered and all of its employees get fired.

Which is headscratchingly mind boggling, because the problem before was that they were so risk adverse that games were being homogenized (aka made too samey), because they were afraid of losing money. Now these companies are willing driving off of cliffs.

[D. Flame]

Originally posted by Eagle_of_Fire:

Originally posted by Paratech2008:

E.T. Atari 2600...

Buried in a landfill.

Because they made a hundred times more cartridge than they could ever sell. Not because the game was low quality. If anything it was a high quality game but they immediately lost it by creating a very negative reaction and reputation around it. It was a marketing disaster, not a bad game due to gameplay or lack of fun.

I'm saying this because I personally played said game. From start to finish. I was there at the time, a fan of the movie the game was based on, and I know of what I am actually talking about. My suggestion to you would be to stop talking about things you clearly don't know about nor understand. It is not something which help driving a discussion forward.

No, ET was a low quality AF. It was basically like the launch CyP2077 of the Atari era.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Originally posted by Eagle_of_Fire:

Because they made a hundred times more cartridge than they could ever sell. Not because the game was low quality. If anything it was a high quality game but they immediately lost it by creating a very negative reaction and reputation around it. It was a marketing disaster, not a bad game due to gameplay or lack of fun.

I'm saying this because I personally played said game. From start to finish. I was there at the time, a fan of the movie the game was based on, and I know of what I am actually talking about. My suggestion to you would be to stop talking about things you clearly don't know about nor understand. It is not something which help driving a discussion forward.

No, ET was a low quality AF. It was basically like the launch CyP2077 of the Atari era.

It was exactly like all the other Atari 2600 games.

[D. Flame]

Originally posted by Eagle_of_Fire:

Originally posted by D. Flame:

No, ET was a low quality AF. It was basically like the launch CyP2077 of the Atari era.

It was exactly like all the other Atari 2600 games.

My first console was an Atari 2600. My favorite game in it was Moon Patrol, and I owned a copy of ET. I am telling you, in no uncertain terms, that you are objectively wrong.

[Eagle_of_Fire]

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Originally posted by Eagle_of_Fire:

It was exactly like all the other Atari 2600 games.

My first console was an Atari 2600. My favorite game in it was Moon Patrol, and I owned a copy of ET. I am telling you, in no uncertain terms, that you are objectively wrong.

No. You are simply falling ill to one of the cancer of humanity, in which you can't objectively analyse something and rather prefer to adhere to what the majority of people are saying, true or not. People have been bashing that game for no reason for half a century so you also have to partake in it.

I'm telling you, it was a marketing disaster. The people in charge thought they'd score million upon million of sales because that game was backed up by an award winning movie which was a cult classic at the time. But it was based on absolutely nothing concrete. Most people who like the movie were not into gaming in the first place, it was simply a popular child movie. Adults who go to the theatre with their child won't automagically go buy the derived products (although this trend was way stronger back then) and the children who loved the movie were not old enough to be able to afford what was (back then) a quite costly game. With the price inflated by the branding, no doubt.

The game itself, the graphics and the gameplay, is just on par with any other game on the Atari 2600 of the time. All you have to do is follow the movie action and do the tasks that E.T. do in the movie, in the right order, while avoiding the "bad guys". A big part of the game is figuring out what you have to do in your first runs. Once you've figured it out you could easily "win" a game in minutes. And again, I've had the game and finished it. Jeez, I was like 8 at the time and I could figure it out and finish it easily by myself.

On par with the other 2600 games of the time.