If you like our work and want to support us, you can become our patrons. www.patreon.com/gaminghd Hey folks, remember to press that bell (🔔) button next to the subscribe button and select the "Send me all notifications for this channel" option , that way you'll get a notification whenever we post a good video ! :) Join Now on our Discord Server ! discord.gg/CZSXJwy
You know, I love Skyrim, but I think everyone has a right to their opinion. Having said that, I gotta wonder, how good is Dragon Age III in your opinion?
It's funny. When I was a kid gaming in the late 90's/early 2000's I used to get so excited about what the future of gaming would bring. Now that the future is here all I want to do is go back to those days :/
Same although for me I mainly played CRPGs and I miss the days when the games I played were tough, unforgiving, and you had to learn the mechanics unlike now where you can pick up a game and it holds your hand through it.
As I get older, I can't help but miss the old days. And I don't just mean gaming or movies. I mean back in the times when I was younger, more naive, more excited, more adventurous in so many ways. Now, my brothers are nearly grown men just as I am, my parents are in their middle age, my grandparents are beginning to pass away, my friends have all moved on and started families of their own, and for the first time in my entire life... I feel my mortality.
I'm an older gamer, and I have played across many platforms over the years and enjoyed lots of great games. It may be just nostalgia, but for me the older games seemed to be so much more immersive. By today's standards they are without question inferior in graphics, sound. But to me it isn't about framerates, pixel resolution, multi channel surround sound and large onscreen color palettes. Its gameplay. And games that offer great gameplay never needed to rely on superior graphics or sound for gamers because they were too busy just enjoying playing the game. Today we have extremely powerful gaming platforms, and while some brilliant games are still being made that offer great gameplay, a lot of games are simply just junk - heavy on superior graphics and sound but shallow in the gameplay and play and feel like you are just watching a B grade movie than actually playing a game.
It's pretty simple. Replay some of the older games. Some of them still hold up. Others don't. Old games still holding up: - Anachronox - Homeworld - The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past - Baldur's Gate 2 - Outcast - Super Mario Bros Old games that are holding up somewhat: - Lords of Midnight, on the ZX Spectrum - Rune - The Legend of Zelda - Doom Old games that aren't really holding up: - Drakan - Elite, on the ZX Spectrum - Grand Theft Auto 3 - Omikron: The Nomad Soul
I would leave 'surround' sound as important part of gameplay. It's hard to enjoy any game without decent headphones, surround sound. Maybe because I'm addicted to stealth games.
honestly in terms of art style I think you could make the argument that many old games look better. (especially because they aren't smeared in temporal AA)
@Anonymous Sure. As I said, I'm an older gamer so many of my favorites were around before a lot of later gen gamers were perhaps even born. That said, some of the classics I've played over the years include; Amiga 500: Dungeon Master / Dungeon Master - Chaos Strikes Back, Dungeon Master 2. Black Crypt Eye of the Beholder 1 & 2 Hired Guns Elvira Captive Chaos Engine Cadaver Fire & Ice Superfrog Megalomania Populus 1 & 2 Powermonger Leisure Suit Larry Kings Quest series Conquest of Camelot Codename Icemen Colonel's Bequest Secret Of Monkey Island Cybercon 3 Hero's quest - Quest for glory Starglider 2 Damocles - Mercenary 2 Frontier (Elite 2) Geoff Crammond's Formula 1 Grand Prix Super Nes: Donkey Kong Country 1, 2 & 3 Legend of Zelda (LOZ), a Link to the Past Lylat Wars (Starfox) Equinox N64: LOZ - Ocarina of Time / LOZ Majora's Mask Turok 1 & 2 Quake Golden Eye Perfect Dark Banjo Kazooie 1 & 2 Jet Force Gemini PC: Homeworld Half Life B17 Grand Prix 4 Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 Torment Age of Empires 2 Wolfenstein Deus X Doom Ultima series I won't list later consoles as you'd probably have a good or better knowledge of what's out there, but I will mention Halo, Dark Souls, Skyrim. Another one continually evolving in development is Elite Dangerous.
@@weskal5490 right dude old games wins fun factor l play Sega Genesis PS1 PS2 and my feeling when l play it can't be matched by any modern games or consoles no matter how good graphic the modern games are,the old games still wins in my heart
The 2000s decade was the greatest decade of video gaming ever. It had the best of both worlds. Relatively great graphics and creative engaging gameplay. Oh and no DLC either.
@@jacobh7188 Yeah but it wasn't as ground breaking as 2000 to 2006 or 7 great games but all the progress was owed to the years before it, most of it slowed down dramatically after that, some perfected the progress tho. There's just no talent anymore. Crackdown was such a huge letdown
The problem with new games is they're cashing in too much on realism over other important aspects of what makes a game good, when the hardware capabilities and other development practicalities are still not enough to facilitate this yet.
"Better" doesn't mean much. I think they were more special and endearing and more effort was put into game mechanics. They were more special because many games were made for niche audiences with high standards, like Flight Simulator games. They were more endearing because games were made by fewer people and as such a lot of individual personality went into the games, with less top-down management. And the game mechanics were more refined because graphics engines were inferior and therefore there was less time spent on putting detail into the game world. For instance, a game like Deus Ex only has 2 death animations. If they'd spent more time on this aspect then maybe other details, like the level design, might have suffered. I think Morrowind is a very good example of a game that retained classic design philosophies but is still visually interesting enough to be playable today without needing nostalgia to help it.
I really didn't need nostalgia to enjoy picking up classics I had missed in my youth, like Arcanum and Baldurs Gate and whatnot. I always find this argument quite nonsensical. It was not nostalgia that made me enjoy those games for most part.
I think that older games tried new things more often, which meant every game had something unique about it. But dont get me wrong there were a lot of copycats too
Old games were better in some specific ways. They were not constrained by having enormous budgets and team sizes (yes, that's a massive constraint!). If you have to sell 10 million copies to break even, what does that do to the gameplay? It's going to be a clone of a tried and true game. It's going to be a narrative driven game full of cut-scenes and other crap to appeal to casual gamers. That's going to force the game to become rather linear, hand held, scripted. It's going to be playtested until there is no place where you can get stuck or lost, until the difficulty curve is a gentle slope that quickly levels off. It's going to be OK, but there's nothing memorable and there's no replay value; you're just going to consume the game and then move along. Game developers had not figured out how a genre were "supposed" to work, therefor there were more experimentation, and team sizes and budgets were much smaller, so you could afford to experiment. Most games, even lazy "me too" Doom clones at least attempted something new or interesting. Another way in which older games were better is that you have at your finger tips access to 30 years of gaming history, and when you compare those games to the limited selection of games released in just the last 12 months you will have a lot more games, a lot more timeless classics, a lot more genres in that 30 year span; and you're not going to have played even a quarter of the good games those years offered. That's just a game of numbers. The spirit of older games largely lives on in indie games, after having hibernated for the early 00's in mods.
+maximaldinotrap 90% of everything is crap, and it's always been like that; possibly more so in the past because there was less filter. Take one of the most inventive games ever made, from which the modern western RPG sprung almost fully formed; it was the flight sim of dungeon crawling, the first immersive game (any category), the game that inspired ID software to use textures and the direct ancestor to Thief, System Shock and Deus ex that still today seem ahead of their time as gameplay somehow has regressed. It did about a dozen unproven things, e.g.: Physics simulation of jumping, falling and swiming in a 3D world Real time textured 3D with slopes, bridges, ability to look up and down Playing only one character and not a party of characters like other first person (non-real time) RPGs A persistent faction/reputation system where most NPCs were not automatically friends nor enemies A mouse driven first person interface in an RPG An automap that would slowly reveal itself as you explore that you could take notes on The ability to defeat most puzzles in several different ways (do you beat the door down and get durability damage, do you do a quest to get a key, do you bribe a guard...?). If that had been a high budget title like todays AAA games, some cunt in a business suit tell them there are too many technological risks and they need to get rid of every single one of the innovative features and base it on a currently existing and proven concept; make it bland, inoffensive, pasteurized, playtested to death and mediocre; but with great production values. This type of game can only come from a low budget and a small team that can take risks without someone telling them not to.
I think it is very similar to how modern hollywood films are also never too innovative if they have a big budget. its always just more of the same gimmick, a sequel, prequel, remake of something already pretty successful, or a new big entry of a franchise. games nowadays have to follow the same trend to make the money back.
This is why I mostly retro game or play indie games nowadays. AAA industry is nothing but pretty games with absolute braindead gameplay design that insults my intelligence and does nothing to give my brain any stimulation like the games I grew up playing did..
I think old games are better because it wasn't about fps (as nowadays) it was music and art. I mean it didn't bother anyone if some game run slow or bad fps.
I think what the mordern gaming industry really lacks is focus you look at the amount of people required to develop new games it becomes nearly impossible to have a cohesive design while older games have a more individual/unified vision of what game and story they want to make.
I think games are still trying to be that one game we all dreamed about. The one “about forest elves and villains where you can raid cowravans and jump and enemies are 3d and dead bodies are 3d and we're ready to wait for tow yers” (that's my best attempt at translating that old Russian meme). But in attempt to be everything at once they lose focus and we get a pile of random things not working together properly. Useless survival mechanics on top of looter shooter game design with a deep story that actually lacks any meaning because it was completely rewritten during last months of development or something like that.
I can safely say I'm not blinded by nostalgia since I didn't really play any of the games coming out when I was younger and didn't really start getting into gaming until the Xbox came out, yet all my favorite games now are from the 90's or early 2000's. I do remember my brother trying to teach me to play Age of Empires before I knew how to read. I remember The Lion King for the Sega as well. Didn't really go down well with me.
Felipe Correia Borges I know what you mean by that special feel, it’s the one you get from sort of sky - coloured games, like sonic green hills or wii sports or old minecraft or similar things. I thought only I felt that. I heard of something called ASMR, and thought It was that, but it was something different. Punk rock and 90s rock gives me a similar vibe. If I get enough of it, I sort of shiver, like scratching a blackboard; but instead it feels good.
@Kalle Vilenius @Me King Tiger both of you guys may be in the minority then. I think some of it comes down to nostalgia, but in your guys cases I'm not really sure, you may just genuinely like it but that doesn't mean that all games were better back then. The relativity between bad and good games have remained basically the same since the late 80s. Indie games or not
There's a lot of great old games and a lot of great new games, it's just a shame that most big budget developers don't seem to want to create masterpieces and instead just go for the easy money i.e. the common denominator.
Older games were better because when they released them, you got the whole game and it was finished. No DLC, day one patches, oodles of glitches, and the price was right. I had a PS4 for 2 weeks and I was disgusted, not just with the lackluster games, but the shifty salesman tactics.
It is actually both. Some old games *ARE* better, others were great for their time and stand as classics, but dont age well. When it comes down to writing quality, there is little link to age. When it comes down to storytelling techniques, whilst we have some clear advances, we also have some old games from the 90s and 2000s going toe to toe or winning comparisons due to how well they use level design or gameplay to tell stories. Graphics are irrelevant to game quality. Art Style though, is more important and modern tech enables MORE possible art styles. Still even games before the possible photorealism era can hold their own with their well made art. AI and physics? Irony is, most new games have shit AI and dont use their impressive physics engines well. STALKER beats modern FPS games in AI, all of them. Half Life 2 and Crysis have lesser physics but use it better than new games so the effect is - the old games win in a technological contest, important ones too... Gameplay is very subjective but I do think that the rougher, sometimes harder and less fair older games can and do hold their own or even win against new games. And I am not biased, whilst I played many games back in the day, I have missed many too. And I compare the old to the new head on... and the old often wins. This is normal for very developed art forms like literature, but IMHO it should not happen for young ones like video games, at least not to this degree.
Your comment describes exactly my thoughts, especially about how quickly the art form declined to commercialist garbage , and nothing else is allowed anymore. It's the only genre of art where people have come to believe quick accessibility equals 'how polished the game is'. Fucking insane that nobody sees that and everyone hails new games as any individualistic trait of the art is stripped away. Disgusting.
I'm coming to a sense that DBZ Budokai 3 was a game great for its time but maybe not good today. NBA Street - NBA Street V3 were great then and great now.
As someone who plays mostly Old or so called Retro Games. I can factually say, old games are generally better than these god awful, dumbed down modern video games. You just have to look and play Morrowind, then Oblivion, and then Skyrim. The quality heavily degraded in only two titles. Morrowind could almost be described as a Novel, where Skyrim is LEGOs in comparison... Morrowind was the last Elder Scrolls Games, where you had Spears, Levitation Spell and spell creation in general. Then Oblivion took away, Underwater Combat. But you could use Magic and Melee Weapons at the same time. That was good. And Skyrim took away even that. You can't use 2H weapons like Bows and two Handers anymore. You have to put the weapon way, to use magic. Its retarded. In Skyrim, the entire melee combat progression system was so dumbed down. You cannot disarm, or do other special attacks anymore. If reaching a certain skill level, like you could in Oblivion. And don't get me started, how bad the entire Destruction Spell-Tree is. Magic does not increase with the level of the Spell Tree. Your lvl 1 firefart will never get stronger. Even with lvl 100 points and complete Mastery of Destruction. While a melee fighter will break through all your magic attacks, while one shotting you with a simple shield bash. Not to mention the idiocy of -100% mana usage you can enchant on items. They put zero balancing and effort into the magic system. And this was only the Elder Scrolls series. Yet this dumbing down, basically applies to all other companies and the garbage they release these days. Gothic 4 - Arcania, CoD, Battlefield, Battlefront 2, Shadow of More Greed, Asinine Greed, Fart Cry 5, DA Inquisition. All these games, compared to previous installments have been, not only dumbed down. They are bad by design. Ranging from anti consumer Microtrashactions, breaking the game for some massive grinding. To using arbitrary leveling systems in Asinine Greed Origins, that you can't kill higher level mobs. Because they are simply at "higher" level. Or you do only 1 HP damage. To completely overpowering everything and one shotting enemies with homing arrows from around the corner. Zero game balance! And not to mention all the bugs, upon bugs, upon bugs. DA Inquisition is not only questionable from a purely game design point of view. It is downright bug broken! This game crashes, often. And if it doesn't crash, basically every character animation bugs out every 5 minutes or so. The one class who's bugged the most, is the Archer. His backwards shotgun flip, can catapult you completely out of the combat area, by using it once! Effectively disengaging combat as a whole. Im not talking about accidentally standing at the border of the combat area and popping that ability. No. Im talking about standing right in front of the enemy. Because that is a close range ability. Im am talking about flying & clipping backwards, over a massive distance through solid rocks. The arms of the characters and their weapons also start to twist, as if they have some kind of algospasm in their limbs. Picking up a Veil Torch, suddenly holding both, the weapon and the torch in the same hand. While the arm either behaves like a long stick. Or twists and twitches like a floppy dong. Same goes for the player closing these rifts... The loading times are atrocious, if you load this game from an HDD. I counted up to 1 minutes and 20 seconds in worst case scenarios. More about 50-60sec on average. While using an SSD. You may never reach the 30 sec barrier. Average loading is about 10-15sec. How inept are these developers? Fallout 4 behaves no different btw. Speaking about questionable game design. I only mention the War Table and its Mobile gaming-like features here. DAI grabs all the possible shite, no one should ever have in his game! This game, is an insult. And if this game would not be called Dragon Age, i would have buried where it belongs. Under a mountain of horse dung! btw. never touche the XBox 360 version of this game. You'll start scratching yourself with a razor blade, if you do!
@@xdisrrptx Visually, no. But in terms of gameplay, content, mechanics, difficulty, old school is a lot better. This is a no brainer because creating computer graphics now takes a lot of TIME and MONEY, which is probably why the other aspects of the games are left behind.
Bruh now 90% of games have dlc’s like battlefront,cod,Batman Arkham knight,maybe cyberpunk too Back then we buy the game we get the WHOLE GAME nothing’s missing
Rule of thumb, show the games to someone that's never played a video game before, or at least imagine you're showing it to someone like that. In some cases they may choose the older games, and in some cases they may choose the newer ones. Sonic on the Genesis is definitely better than the modern Sonic games, even Adventures 1 and 2. Doom 2016 however will be seen as better than the original, simply because the graphics and more complex level design. Mario games may be, for the most part, seen as consistent across time with how good they are. Race and flight simulators are superior now due to the physics engines and overall realism. Race and flight arcades however may be consistent across time. Newer games have better graphics and physics, and some have deeper stories than anything possible on older games. Old games don't have things like loot boxes though, and the DLC back then was only on PC in what used to be called "expansion packs". Any "DLC" for consoles, even in the early to mid 2000's, was always just packaged as a new and fully featured game. Like the Sims Busting Out. With regards to multiplayer, it's a mixed bag. Online multiplayer is more of a thing these days on consoles, but split screen play is disappearing. Why can't I play Doom 2016 with some friends on a couch? Why do I need the internet to play multiplayer with it? I miss when playing multiplayer was a social thing, not just idiots screaming at strangers online.
I've been thinking a lot about this subject as well, since even though I tend to buy a lot of the newer games I always end up playing the older ones with a few exceptions. Sure many older games have play-ability issues, take Dune 2 vs Dune 2000 as an example, I used to love Dune 2, but now I find Dune 2000 to be the superior experience due to a few mechanics and GUI improvements. Sure many new games look absolutely gorgeous, but somehow many don't have the "charm and personality" that many older games had, as an example I rather play the original Settlers 2 over Settlers 2 10th anniversary. Older games also tended to be less scripted, a shooter was a shooter, a modern military FPS is often just a fancy spectacle with scripted instances. You get to watch what the developers wanted you to watch and do exactly what they intended, experimentation, trial and error and exploration is often none existent, playing most new FPS games reminds me of being spoon fed as a baby. The few games that have drawn me in recently have all been either indie games, from a smaller publisher or remasters of something old, the experience tend to be if not unique at least enjoyable to the extent that I can't wait to play it again. The same can't be said about all the triple AAA titles I have in my steam library, not only are most of them a much shallower none interesting experience, but they are riddled with DLC's, micro transactions and other shite which don't let me experience the game but instead it keeps me reminded that I would do so much better if I had that item for 5$ or that DLC which have that 1 unit in it that's crucial or what ever. Old games had charm and personality, sure they were not perfect but plenty of times the experience was so much deeper and more intriguing, it was like a good TV series, you wanted to play it more, just one more turn, just one more map etc etc. Modern games are often like a Michael Bay movie, full of fancy CGI and explosions, but lack any meningsfull experience and the feel that you gained anything of value, you could just watch another random movie to get a quick fix but meh it's just that a quick fix, not anything deeper, not something worth coming back to.
Excellent writing.I mostly think old games were better cuz they were more simple, not have details like modern games.Detail seems nice in first but actually people can lost themselves in a lot of details and miss the actual picture.In old days you dont have that graphic or ui or game mechanic detail but yet you would easily see the big picture and enjoy the game, but in modern games you cant even just enjoy the game cuz of extreme details that prevents you from the main game line.Like amazing graphics.You will want more graphic as the games developing but in old games, you were happy with the 'trash' graphics cuz it was enough for you and you knew thats gonna make you happy. Major problem with the modern games are not the games totally, instead its problem with the human psychology.Which i bond it to "dissatisfaction" or "gluttony".Modern games make us saturated with plenty of contets, while old games lacked of content but yet it keeped our desire to play.Proof to this, is games like COD I am 21 yo guy, played games since when i was 5.And i still play games, i can see the difference between oldies and newbies. New announced games are not taking my attention a bit now.I dont even wanna play them
new modern games made me feel gaming annoying back in the days i had lots of fun with nes snes n64 and many more i could play for days new modern games makes you mad or tired i dont like gaming mutch anymore but i might go back to retro gaming again..
The answer is definitely nostalgia. Oldschool games were like an event, I remember on every Friday after school we would go to the video rental store put all out money together and rent our reserve copy of the latest game for $2.00 for the weekend, we would go over to my house and play it while drinking our 50 cent 2 liter RC cola and bags of chips, it was amazing, we would talk about every stupid thing teenagers talk about while playing video games. It was a routine, during the day we would be on our bikes or playing sports but by 6:00PM we would either play games or watch scary or action movies, there was no internet, cellphones or anything like that, everybody had a mom and dad and everyone in the neighborhood knew each other, it was fantastic. I wish in the future someone would recreate the 80's and experience what we did, it was wonderful.
Old games were better in some aspects, they were good at keeping you playing for the appropriate amount of time. I can still load up doom/duke nukem and have a fun few hours playing and shooting around. New games try to keep you playing for much much longer which often means less fun, but for a longer period of time.
Same, I’m 16 and I’ve been a retro player since I was 12. I tried to be a nitro player too, by getting an Xbox One S and some games for it. When I turned it on, I had to make a password, and I had to update it and it took forever. The games weren’t that good either. They weren’t as challenging as the old ones, The graphics look too realistic, and the new games cost more money. I just couldn’t stand nitro games so I just use my Xbox One as a DVD player, and I use my Retro Consoles for my games.
I have to disagree with you. I think people confuse better design with hand holding. A lot of the things Skyrim left out I felt were pretty surface level. Things like spell making were cool and all but I mean what’s stopping you from dual wielding two effects you want? Some things are cut for the sake of newer mechanics. Skyrim did a lot of things I liked. Like bringing back in world fast travel, crossbows, introducing followers, taking the headache from building a character, arguably the best leveling system in the series, PROPER necromancy (seems like a huge one everyone forgets) and with the streamlining of character creation it gave you better control of what kind of character you wanted. Gone are the days of spreading yourself too thin because you hadn’t experimented with like 3 different characters before committing because you knew zero about the leveling and number crunching. Now you just do what you want and invest points into it. No more breaking fatigue into like 2 different stats. Just place the points in whichever pool you wanted. It’s roleplay without the baggage. DND uses small numbers because it doesn’t want them to get in the way and I think crpgs forget that. As for choice? TES never had it besides like daggerfalls ending.
My feeling is that almost every classical good game was surpassed by a later game, but gaming in general sucks way more ass now than it did "back in the day". Gaming was a niche enthusiast medium in the past. If you were a gamer or a game developer then, it's because you were passionate about games and wanted the medium to thrive and evolve. It couldn't be any other way. Nowadays, the gaming is shaped by corporate execs, who don't give a shit about gaming, different types of political activists, who don't actually give a shit about gaming, and a whole audience of people who game simply because it's a popular medium. There's enough said about the first 2 groups, but the latter group is rarely mentioned. Those are people with shitty tastes who want games to be more like and try to evaluate games for the qualities of other medium. Look at the "story rich" craze we have nowadays. I'm not against a good story in a game, but how did it happen that a game can be praised for its story despite shitty gameplay? Look at The Last of Us. The gameplay is typical tired derivative 3rd person console action. Yet the game was chosen as the game of the year by many critics and praised by audience, mainly for its story. Who are those people? Where did they come from? There was the "PC gaming master race vs console peasants" meme, but nowadays there isn't this line anymore. A lot of PC gamers nowadays don't remember the time when PC gaming was great. TLDR: Good games are still being made. The absolute quality of games keeps getting better (not necessarily on average, but in the best examples). But the people in the gaming suck nowadays. Games are played by people who don't love or understand gaming. Games are made by people who treat it like fast food business. Gaming is covered by people who care more about identity politics.
like the people making a lot of game just don't get what a game is, what are mechanics, and why you would add them, and that they should be unique. Game companies started to become something like "I don't know what I'm doing, but I have the power to do it" and that basically since games started making graphics their main meat in game, and that they even started to say you need a new pc for this game. that's where it just went downhill, pushing the technologies, but the only thing being pushed are the graphics with bad optimizations, not the actual gameplay into new unique experiences, and most times the experience and actual game become worse than they were over decade ago. I still have yet to believe ps2 games like Shadow of the Colossus still beats most games that are coming out in raw mechanic complexity of Colossus, and how you approach and fight them, but ps2, GameCube, Xbox game does beat modern games. that's ridiculous, there's more technology and funding and what not but it's being wasted in modern games in literally something much less, then the complexity of approach and gameplay of a single Colossus in Shadow of the Colossus, that game is almost 2 decades old. how can a 2-decade old game bring more fun and complexity and entertainment, and a shocking ending, then a modern game that has more technologies. Hi res graphics are truly what killed games, it stopped from being an actual game, to a low-quality cinematic mess. If people are going to make a game and use the technologies exclusively for graphics alone for what's apparent. Just don't make a game and make a movie or series. a game isn't a movie or a series, literally people making modern games now just don't even know what they're doing. You make a game, or you make a movie, pick one, don't say you're making a game when your main resources are going into cutscenes, graphics, and actor celebrity voice acting, that's a freaking movie not a game, get your crap together people companies out there. it's like making a Strawberry ice-cream made with chocolate as its main-only ingredient, you can't call that a strawberry ice cream; that's chocolate ice cream.
let me just say this and i hope you read it. games are only as good as they are designed and developed to be. games that are made with detailed stories, likable/relate able characters, polished gameplay. and quality control. as a society we have become "accustomed to accept mediocrity" and by that i mean we accept the AAA developers are gonna make B grade garbage. Throw in broken micro transactions. and just refuse to correct and fix game breaking or immersion breaking bugs. Now i'm not saying that older games are without bugs but the bugs and glitches we see today WOULD NEVER be sell able 20 years ago. Also don't get me wrong some bugs/glitches are hilarious and should be included in the game like if they were to be considered Easter eggs. but nostalgia yes is a "quite literal bitch" to overcome. having a new experience and then trying to replicate that alter is IMPOSSIBLE. and every developer wants to try and replicate an experience that has already been done. So nostalgia cannot be beaten. because when you make the same gameplay with a different story. it just inst there.
What I truly miss from old games is their treatment of the gamer as an adult and not an ADD ridden child. Take any modern game and you get a fancy quest marker, very elaborate maps even in settings where such items would be incredibly rare, quest notifications, voluble characters with excessive exposition about what you're supposed to do, etc. The game isn't brave enough to hold you responsible for solving the in-game problems. Compare that to old games: Fallout 1 - the vault is running out of water, it's up to YOU to find a water chip. You have 150 days, and the only help you get is the vague info about another vault to the east. Planescape: Torment - you wake up in a mortuary. You don't know who you are, or even your name, but there is an order to "find Pharod" tattooed on your back. It's up to you to find out what the hell is going on. Silent Hill 2 - James Sunderland comes to the town after receiving a letter from his wife, begging him to find her in Silent Hill. His wife, however, has been dead for the last 3 years. Where in the town do you go? Well, you're as clueless as James in that regard Modern games try to be immersive by throwing a mountain of content at you, giving you an 'open world', but holding your hand on every step of the way lest the gamer gets confused. Old games were smaller, more compact, but their ( even completely fictional ) worlds were more realistic - you had to pay attention and engage your brains. And that made them more immersive.
I think I can agree with many people around that loot boxes and pay to win transactions are lame at best. But most games are not having those lame elements. And lots of older games are just bad or haven't aged too well. Even from my favorite gaming era, the PSone era, lots of games no feel wrong and dated, not even a glimps of nostalgia can save them. And nobody claiming they play 90% of old games really know what 90% of those old games are like. Maybe they mean 90% of old games they always liked to play. That can't be much nor mean anything. Lots of modernngames from PS2 onward to this day are really good. Only thing that has changed is that I do not have six hours a day to dive deep into a game and I have to reserve my weekends for open gaming time now when as a kid I could play seven days a week.
Older are better less agendas thrown in them they’re less corrupted/more human wasn’t just about money and a lot more mystical/momentism in them especially w the music
Command and Conquer, Deus Ex, Knights of the old Republic - I miss the old games but there are some great indie devs out there that catch the love and detail of gaming.. Like Kerbal space program, undertale, factorio, FTL etc. So in a nutshell: AAA publishers ruin the market
They were better, required immersion, skill and knowledge. Now they are all graphics, with dumb stories, no immersion, mod peddling, pointless infinite grind, zero requirement to play due to all the hand fucking holding
I like old graphics better too, they feel more like reality whereas modern games feel like I’m dreaming or something. I like being able to see pixels too, just looks nice.
Games back in those days kept my attention better, because you knew what you wanted and you sought out to play it. Now we have loads of decisions on what to play. Games were also tailored not to audiences but to types of ideas and game decision and design. Now people are forced to make games to suit the majority, and if a niche game is created, it runs the risk of not even selling. At least when games that were niche were made by the bigger market, people played them and were happy, even on NES. Today games are hard for me to digest, the newer ones, I have to go back about 15 years at times on PC to really enjoy a title, indie market is helping fill this need, but not all games are wonderful, a lot of them are expensive copy knock offs of what I grew up to in the 80s.
Many commenters here seem to conflate AAA games with new games. Sure, the AAA games have only been around for a little while, but there are new games made by indie developers that are absolutely exceptional. Rimworld, Xenonauts, Starbound, Terraria, Planet Coaster, Stardew Valley, Prison Architect, Cities Skylines, and many others come to mind. By the way, there have been industry-changing AAA games as well like the original Mass Effect trilogy and Witcher 3; they are some of the greatest games of all time. There are many shit AAA games too. But my point is a great game is a great game regardless of its budget or technology available at the time of release.
Master Blaster is one of the most fun games ever made. In and out of the moon truck battle. Boss battles. Power ups and no save points. Brutal epic game
I feel that the long lasting appeal of arcade games over other older games like for ps1 for example, is again the amount of control that you have, which makes the challenge more attractive, addictive and more based on actual skill rather than on 'realistic' chance.
we played fewer games back then. then every game is more worth to us. now its too mutch. and too many small shitty games that was made by one person. i would not complain if 3 people made a zelda clone today that is actually as good as zelda is.
Gaming has barely changed quality in my opinion. There existed trash back in the NES days, the 90's, the 00's and all over the place. The reason that we say this is because we remember the awesome, revolutionary titles. Nobody remembers the shallow cash grabs trying to make a quick buck off of the success of better games, people remember things like Castlevania, Metroid, A Link to the Past, Super Metroid, Ocarina of Time, Fallout 1, Deus Ex, Morrowind, Oblivion. We say that gaming is worse now when in reality, the quality has stayed mostly the same. The bad games are much more apparent now because we exist there with them and are easily accessible with hundreds of people talking about them.
I would have to say both personally. I was born nine years after the video game crash of 83. In my time alive I have had at some point in time a Playstation, a Gameboy, a Nintendo 64, I had a Gameboy color, a PS2, an original Xbox, a Gamecube, a Gameboy advance, an Gameboy advance SP, a Nintendo Wii, an Xbox 360, a Nintendo DS lite, a Nintendo DSi XL, a Nintendo 3DS, a PS4, an Xbox One. I have had the honor of playing many of the greatest games from the 90s to now. The 90s were the rebirth of gaming after the video game crash of 83. When I say new being worse is both true and nostalgia I mean it more or less depends on the franchise. Look at Pokemon for an example of the newer games being better than the gen one games. For the reverse look at Battlefront by Pandemic and Battlefront by DICE and Criterion. Look at Halo Combat Evolved vs Halo 5, is Halo 5 an enjoyable game to me? Yes it is, but is it better than Halo: Combat Evolved? No I know what some might say: "But what about a modern game being better than its predecessor?" Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is being hailed as one of the best if not the best Zelda games out there. Fire Emblem Awakening is considered to be one of the best if not the best Fire Emblem game. For another two games that are somewhat old but is new in the general sense that the franchise has been around a long time: Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy VII, the two best Final Fantasy games I have ever played. VII game out in 97 just ten years after the first game, and X came out in 01 just four years after VII. These two are considered to be two of the best entries in the franchise and not even the first game in the franchise is considered to be better than them. For a more modern Final Fantasy game look no farther than Final Fantasy XV. It too is considered to be one of the best of the franchise and was a breath of fresh air after the turds that were XIII and XIV. For Strategy games in the 4X genre Civ V or Civ VI vs Civ I lol.
Of course games were better before. Before, there was not that much money into making games. That meant, that those who did put significant effort into games, only did it out of passion. The passion FELT! Now, they just make games for money, fast, sloppy and forgettable. However, indie scene is quite big now. That proofs a lot.
@@kaihedgie1747 But the good old ones are better then the good new ones is the point.....Graphics over an actual video game people love feeling like there in a movie looking through someone's eyes but in crappy 3d form which if thats what you like it will never give you satisfaction until it looks like actual real life and then thats a cool game....so backwards graphics are not games experience and game mechanics and storyline are....
@@kaihedgie1747 no if you wanted your game to succeed in the 90s it had to be good and you couldnt get cheat off youtube or walkthroughs you had to actually beat the game these days they can advertise a bad game and still make money if you made a bad game in the 90s you were broke even if the cover looked awesome kids wouldnt buy it....oh no pleae dont tease my channel haha i cant afford to lose any more subscriptions
I'm late to the party and I didn't listen to the video, but I'll share this anyways : I think it's the feeling of discovery that really makes it all the difference. Video games have fondementally similar mechanics and it's discovering them as a kid, when you have a lot of free time, that really makes the difference. As adults, most 90s have explored all these mechanics and have less time so new games don't impress them anymore like they did before. For a kid of today, that's completely different and I'm sure in 10-15 years they will say the same things as we do
There is definitely a difference. Video games in the 90s targeted audience are geeks and nerds with a lot of free time, so they make mechanically complex and punishing games, but this is a pure Western and a very American thing. Outside of Western Europe and North America, the smart nerdy kids have more school works and have no time for complex games because they don't have all the free times Western kids do. Modern Corporate electronic entertainment must aim for the biggest market to be profitable, so they can't aim for nerdy niches with a couple of exceptions like people who made souls games and Escape From Tarkov/Hunt Showdown type of games. Most publishers needs to make graphically exciting mechanically simple game if they want real profit because grew productive adults and younger kids either have no time or lack of mental capacity to handle mechanically complex and punishing games that demand its players to "git gud" before enjoy. Older people with real life responsibilities don't look for challenges in video games because they had enough of that in real life unless 6-12 grade teens who aren't into sport and are bored out of their minds if not for video games This might sounds terrible, but did you notice that most of the hardcore gamers in the West tend to be adults on welfare or part-time employed, or non-athletic and socially less connected teens with a lot free time to do whatever (the down time that was supposed to be occupied by sports and partying with popular and athletic teens). There is a reason for that, and so is why the Orient is moving away from dedicated console and PC gaming and into a more small section based, much more dumb down, but much more compact and mobile experiences because people over there never developed a culture that enabled a certain segment of the society to idle in free time (vast majority of the kids dedicate 90% their time and energy in schooling to prepare for the future and vast majority of the adults are overwhelmed by responsibility in white collar corporate environments and nuclear family homes so no one has time for "git gud" games). The bottomline is, majority of the people don't have the amount time to dedicate in gaming that older games require to enjoy.
Picture it this way: Old games are made by people who take their time writing a good script and steadying their animation process, therefore these games are great forever. New games are made by people who don't put much thought into their games to make it better than anything before it, they literally just wasted the chance to make a groundbreaking and innovative game or one that could last for generations. How could we have let this happen to our precious franchise's? I don't know. Should we still play old games today? Absolutely.
I thought pokemon was great because I had nothing to compare it to. If only I had spent some time in the woods collecting insects and other critters I could've saved a lot of money...
My two cents: Old games often just launched straight into gameplay - modern games put you through endless unskippable cinematics, videos and tutorials after an installation process that takes a darn long time itself ... and even after you've passed through the initial tutorial they still don't give you access to all gameplay features until near the end of a campaign...
"Old games often just launched straight into gameplay" Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Ocarina of Time and plenty other high profile games hit you with long cutscenes long before you even got to control your character.
@@kaihedgie1747 Yeah, FFVII intro was hella long lol. But the best thing about it, you could just imagine the voices, or imitate their voices. This is perfect if you record or stream a gameplay of it, it never gets boring.
I think the old ones are better because they worked our imagination better in a simpler and more immersive way, over the years the technological capacity increased and the games became more and more complex and, for me, boring! It is no longer that simple distraction for my brain, because with games I try to rest my mind, which is already tired with work and routine! Therefore, arriving home after a tiring journey, all I wanted was to get something to eat, turn on the video game and put on something simple that amuses me, and not time-consuming games to understand as if they were a philosophy book, and on themes and subjects that don't interest me and worst of all, these online services! When I go to play I want to disconnect, I don't want to go online...
It does vary from game to game. But I think it's a combination of factors you mentioned in the video. One is a lot of people have fond memories of older games as they were their first. But also as you mentioned that back in the day studios felt like they really tried to inovate, so as a result there was more variety and people were more likely to find niche mechanics and such that they really liked. But many of which never got polished and became main stream. So they some experiences which newer games just can't capture because they or more streamlined for a broader audience. Like you bashing on Skyrim for being watered down mess yet it's extremely popular and some say best ES yet. While you hold Morrowind up as the best and others walk the middle like saying Oblivion was the best having improved on Morrowind while not losing it's core like Skyrim did. So it feels like it comes down to a bit of personal preference but then again we also don't know how much it had to do with that being their first. After all Morrowind you said was your first and you hold it as top tier of ES games. So for those holding up Oblivion as best was it their first ES? But overall I do think a lot of older games are better due to actual effort put in by developers instead of the cynical cash grab most studios treat games. Sure the GFX have improved and in some cases UI has improved only because they are copying well established UI in the same way the copy mechanics.
You had me until you started ranting against JRPGs. ...And I mean, to be fair, most JRPGs TODAY do indeed suck (although the recent double whammy of Persona 5 and Nier Automata has been nice). But back in the 90's and early 2000's? They were amazing, and spouting crap about how they're all about crystals, grinds, and boring combat is like me assuming all WRPGs are just about killing orcs and rats for random NPCs. As for nostalgia, new vs. old, etc., I'll say this much... games back then were far less hand-holding. But they were also more intuitive and focused. These days we have so many massive open world games trying to be literally everything to everyone, and it all just ends up feeling like bloat with no substance. It's almost to the point where it's too much. I end up feeling less fulfilled by an 80 hour behemoth open world game than a five hour focused game like Silent Hill 2 or Super Metroid, let alone a game like FFVII or Bloodborne that's long AND feels substantial and well crafted the entire way through. Why play a game like Assassin's Creed number whatever where the stupid tutorial alone is longer than many entire games, and the rest is probably not half as rewarding once you're through it?
To be fair, jRPGs could do with innovating past the turn based combat. There were some pretty good games like Vagrant Story that surpassed the jRPG genre.
JRPG is not original, JRPG was born by western RPG came out first in western such as Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy, modeled after the western computer RPG's Wizardry and Ultima that's really popular back then. nowadays, we got many JRPG like Etrian Oddessy, Disgaea & etc etc..
That implies that there is something wrong with Turn Based Combat. Innovating past it is pointless because it's not something that needs to be innovated past. There are still Japanese action RPGs if you don't like JRPGs.
There's nothing wrong with turn based combat, but I like it when it has a lot of depth to it. Like Jagged Alliance 2 - that is turn based combat pretty much perfected imo. Jrpg combat looks so banal in comparison.
Depth of combat in different genres of games that only share the fact that their combat is turn-based is expressed in different ways and as such it's unfair to compare combat of Jagged Alliance, a turn-based tactics game from west with literally an entire genre or turn-based RPGs from Japan. JRPG turn-based combat can and often was deep enough in the way fitting of that genre. If it's your personal opinion that the depth expressed in those games is banal, bland or something else, then you can hold that opinion, but it's important to differentiate between subjective likes and dislikes and gameplay that is objectively in need of being innovated beyond or improved.
Bomberman '94 on the NEC PC Engine (TurboGrafx-16) is my favorite old simple game. Whenever I want to feel nostalgic with something from my childhood that I craved for and did not have it, I play that. I did not have a Sega Genesis to play the Mega Bomberman version, nor a SNES to play the Superbomberman 3 and 4. However, there was a 100% true port of it on PC (DOS) that I played in 1997-1998 after Dyna Blaster and Atomic Bomberman. I have never found that game again, so I can only use emulators. It's like it never existed. :( A Windows version surfaced in the Microsoft Store, but not the "original" DOS one. Sure, I still like many classic games, since the '80 and early '90 that I played on my TIM-s computer (Sinclair Spectrum clone), or on friends' PCs, Ataris, Apple IIs, Amigas, etc, but this particular title is my gold standard for puzzle-ish arcade-is games. So, there's an extra type of nostalgia, for games that I wanted, did not have at their time, only some 4 year later and were still very good. PS: My favorite "complex" old game is Fallout 2.
I think the bad dues game is too old, but I feel like there was this golden age , at least for me, where I had age of empires 2, dungeon keeper, Quake 2, Hexen, FIFA 98, and even though there's nostalgia, they are still solid games that you could enjoy today
Captain Blood, Shadow of the beast, Xenon2, Millenium 2.2, Deuteros, Frontier, ... I was amazed then, watching those now makes me scratch my head. As long as platform goes, Turrican II was never surpassed. Metroid prime on gamecube was tons of fun. The better graphics and sound of current games come sometimes with lack of depth, side quests, secrets, lore, characters, charisma, and intelligence. There is a problem with current vastness or infinite universes in games : you can not "level design" a big place. Maybe IA can do it better than procedural, but I liked the manual level design. You get a sense of closure when you finish an old school game. It is strange, as much as I love Elite Dangerous from the bottom of the heart, i don't play it, I'm more into the small planets like in Osiris new dawn. I like being able to measure progress, complete something, move on, etc. KSP has it all, KSP is on par with old games ...
Old games - took inmeasurable effort Modern games - easy for everyone and the developers' goal is only the money I only like modern games cuz of graphics and some mechanics. I like old games too, but not too old like 80s or 90s. Somewhere in 2000s.
2000s were no doubt the golden age of video games, it was far back enough to when the developers cared but new enough for the games to have enough technology to be good.
It's both. There are lot of old games that are better than modern games, but soulless cash grabs were just as prevalent back in the day and there are plenty of modern games that have passion and love put into them.
@Marek Tužák There was just a ton of innovation during those years. The market wasn't ruled by the huge studios like it is today. You had small studios producing AAA games and taking risks to be different from the pack. It's this kind of attitude that led to games like Tribes 1&2 , Savage, Half-life 1&2, Planetside, Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot: the list goes on an on. There's never been a time where I found gaming more engaging then in those years. And no, It wasn't because I was new to gaming. I had been a gamer since 1989.
I would say the most important thing to look for in video games is immersion mainly because no matter how hard you try video games will never beat pen and paper when It comes to rpg mechanics or strategy and they will never beat books at story and never beat film at visuals but no other medium has the same potential for immersion as video games but sadly modern games don’t much care for immersion
We've yet to get anything even close to as technically impressive as Underworld and System Shock 1. Even Crysis is shallow in comparison to these two. Thief 1 & 2 infinitely outclass any attempts at parkour or exploration or stealth. Those games did everything amazing nowadays a game gets credited for one or two things being neat while the rest is just "meh."
I know its old vid. But I think you missed a very important key point about old games. Look at steams top 10 right now. PUBG is dribbling about at the top game is terribly made, with no colour and has diabolical interface and I can't fathom why its even a thing, yet super popular. But look down at the rest. #2 Dota 2. Clone of a 20 year old mod. - improved visuals / UI #3 Counter Strike GO. Clone of a 20 year old mod. - improved visuals / UI #4 Rainbow siege. Clone of CS designed to appeal to the cod demographic. #5 Warframe. Game is almost 5 years old. #6 Payday 2. Game is almost 5 years old. #7 GTA 5. improved graphics game that plays just like GTA 3 did 15 years ago. - improved visuals / UI #8 TF2 12 years old. Overwatch is the "new TF2" yet it's still pulling 35k people. #9 Football manager. Football hasn't changed since the 1930s really. #10 ARK? Games quirky, with a bad interface and a buggy mess and no direction. Just like a lot of old games like Dudes and ninjas and daggerfall that you pointed out. Hardly fantastic. Granted a lot of these are multiplayer. But GTA 5 and FM definitely fill the single player criteria. Are old games better? No. Are old games "better?" Yes, clearly old mechanics and letting people think for themselves is a huge positive for games. "Press F to open door" Press F to climb" "Press F to beat the boss" is just shoddy game design. Let people actually fight the boss like we did time and again with Dr. Robotik and Bowser.
Indeed they are, coming back to my childhood games (gothic, fallout, elder scrolls) they graphically hold up really well and gameplay wise they offer so much replayability that most modern games do not offer as they are a cash grab.
There was a time when i wasn't sure if my preference for many old games was nostalgia or not. Then UA-cam came along and with it many let's plays.....and then....and then i saw people playing games i never played myself back then, either because i was too young, or i didn't have access to them. Some of the Ultima series fall into this category. So i asked myself.....how can i be nostalgic about games i never played? Could it be that they were much more engaging? More immersive? More creative? More.... "fun"? Not that there aren't any such games today, but there were back in the day. And many of the those games back then....well, as you said, they seam to have tried harder. The sorry state of the things is that none of those awesome ideas people had back then are really worked on or revived today. Ok.....maybe some are.....but way too few.
The other gripe I have with new games is that the amount of control I have over what happens is reduced by all this new realism. I can appreciate a game mirroring aspects of real life but not at the expense of the game play, I want to be able to escape real life and get a dopamine release and not be killed all the time because 'it's realistic'. Realistic aspects also don't work when other aspects aren't realistic, for example, I prefer Red Faction on PS2 to Call Of Duty 4 because I have full control over the cross hair and can fine tune the sensitivity, and when I take my hand off the analogue stick the screen immediately stops where I left it and this appears to make up for the fact that I'm not actually inside the game and shooting a gun but using a remote control, whereas COD 4 has a bunch of 'realistic' moving about, which makes me feel less in control and removed from the game play and I just don't enjoy it for nearly as long.
Old games are just different. It's hard to pin point with absolute what is objectively better. We just look at modern graphics, cinematics, art and music, more gimmicks in gameplay, full open worlds, and we are like "How can this be not better than some old janky crap back in time, where they couldn't even have the technology to cram so much content" But it's not about better or not. Who care if something is objectively better if you don't enjoy it. There are tropes in modern games that really destroy my experience, but these tropes exist because 1) technology allows it, 2) mainstream gaming culture (or modern game design rules) says it's good for the player. So every game has it. It also depends in the individual. Which elements make a game a great experience for you. I realize the majority of the players expect the cinematic story experience and everyone rants about how important stories are for video games. But it wasn't like this always, or at least not in the way stories are told in video games. One reason was again technology. They couldn't make a PS3 like cinematic experience in the 90s where the main player view is stolen from the player to change cameras to some interactive view where you have to press some button for the QTE, but you are not really the one moving, just scripted. Or every game must have tons of real actors speech and actors, while restricting the player choice and movement with linear paths. And there are more elements. One element in modern game is to always have an assistant/walkie talkie/someone to talk you through the mission. I have enjoyed more old games even obscure janky one because that wasn't there, they wouldn't be able to fit the speech in 90s computers (Janky games like Realms of Haunting, Jurassic Park Trespasser or also the King's Field I recently played on PS1/2). I was really immersed as I was left alone at some abandoned place with no assistant, almost no humans or at all, very limited story elements only as you progressed, not on every steps and definitelly not shoe-horned with in between gameplay cinematics. If there are such show stoppers there are few. I am recently immersed in early Dark Souls games (I like the old ones more than the later FromSoft stuff), as most of the time you are left at peace, you can ask characters for cryptic answers or discover things yourself, nothing is forced. There are rare cinematics but only at key moments where you triggered something. There is the same sense of dread and loneliness. And there are more elements but better I stop. There are little tropes and things that are done differently in modern games because it's anti-design to do things the old way, which I will admit sometimes they weren't done by choice but because of limited technology or oversight as there were no QAs but four dudes in their underwear with passion for those immersive early 3D worlds. I guess there might be a similar story for 2D games, but I just miss the early simplistic and immersive 3D games of the 90s-2000s. Modern games have all the extra gimmicky tropes that spoil it for me.
It is important to distinguish between facts & opinions first. A good Story is mostly a debatable opinion. Yet, it can factually be a bad story. Mostly, when retconning and other crap, turns the story like a twister into a huge clump of a mess. Stuff you can measure are facts. That can be graphics, performance & stability (crash free). Also working gameplay elements. Objectively can you compare gameplay elements. Many games in the past, did gameplay elements better than modern games do. And when modern games start to stack up, bad, broken, just non-working elements one upon another. People become angry. Especially when these people played games where all these elements worked. Even if its in 5 different games separately. We have end 2017 and User Interfaces & Combat Systems have gone worse! They are upside down backwards broken now! This also includes Mods that fixed all that shit, years before. And then comes a Skyrim or Fallout 4 around the corner and takes a huge dump on some "non professional developers" fixed and improved content. By simply don't giving a single shit. (Did anyone play the Mod Enderal? How come that Skyrim is human waste in comparison? Lore and quality wise?) And then, some assheads really believe, people won't get pissed and won't rant? Skyrims UI was awful. Fallout 4s UI is beyond abysmal, especially the PC controls. For both PIP Boy & Settlement Controls. A dead shot rat can do better! Why does the PiP Boy even exist as this arm wrist interface bullshit? This is a major hardcoded man made design problem! Then, We have game balance, part of game design. That is also something you can measure, or look at it objectively. For this, you can take, basically every single game from the past 10 years. And easily say, game balance is dead. But Bethesda with Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 4 and CDP-Red with Witcher 3 are one of the most pathetically balanced games you can find on the market. These antiquated pseudo MMO RPG systems need to die out, ASAP! It makes no sense what so ever to use such a braindead system in Witcher 3 for example. It simply clashes with the World Lore and the suspension of disbelief. When a full trained Witcher, with all his wisdom and magic power and mutagens. Can die, when a drunk bum smashes a chair on the Witchers head. Yet, he wipes the ass of a Dragon fully naked, just because he's 60 levels higher. Or the other way around, that Dragon can not even scratch the naked Witcher, while standing in the middle of his fire breath. Because he is 60 level higher, the witcher. No, that is just No to making sense, No to the World Lore, not to the disbelief, No to anything remotely considerable to be ok! Not only does this bring in, a massive amount of balancing issues. As CDPR tried to fix over and over again, numerous times. It could be fixed so easily, with a simple Logic table/Truth table, its mind boggling. All the Lore, disbelief and balancing issues can be solved with such a table. Very easily. Even later for fine balancing. It even works with RNG balancing. The entire difficulty setting, can be build upon such a table. Without a hassle. Combine it with Armor Threshold, something barely anyone ever heard about. And your world becomes more believable. While improving or at least shifting the combat system into a better direction. CDPR asked people for balancing feedback for head shots, for their new Cyberpunk 2077 game. Already shoving, that they don't know crap about how to balance a game! I already wrote down, how its done right here. Armor Threshold, Truth/Logic Table! Do modern developers use it? No, they don't. They rather waste hours of hours of man power and money, to create just another Pseudo MMO RPG system. Where they tinker around for weeks and months to come. And still mess up the game balance. Just to repatch everything multi times. Look at CDPR with Witcher 3, they did exactly that many times! Look at the patch notes! And it does not look better for Bethetic games. Fallout 4 makes it even worse, by directly influencing the Weapon Damage up to 200+% by the skill tree/system itself! Its just horrible design straight from hell! Almost every skill, contributes to some kind of damage. Debalancing the entire, already broken game, even further beyond! How stupid and unaware have modern developers truly become? btw. you can upgrade the Minigun & Combat Shotgun to the point where they won't do damage to anything further away than an childs arm length. Its pathetic! Many stuff, doesn't even *make sense* anymore in video games. Or is outright badly implemented. People compare Elex to Gothic 2. When Gothic 2 is gold, and Elex is a turd. The combat system in Gothic 2 worked. In Elex its broken. A failed by design combination of terrible UI, where your staminabar is at the upper left corner, very small. And in the lower left corner, is your combo meter. And in the middle of the screen is the action. Because people have 3 eyes, able to look at 3 totally different directions. Just plain stupid by design. And the Stamina does not help. Its not an improvement to an already broken and wonky hitbox system. Its plain bad, because it stops the game/combat flow. The entire game balancing is again, broken. Not only by yet another pseudo RPG system. No, many skills don't work as intended. And skill points are only needed for the player to equip weapons. (While the progression through items is ideal. In Elex it takes you up to lvl 10-20 ~10 to 15 hours and more. Just to equip better weapons) Parrying like in Gothic does not work anymore, you either roll away. Thanks to Dark Souls for dumbing down an entire industry to the lowest possible nominator. Or you walk away. Wait for stamina, attack. Walk away again, wait for stamina, repeat... What many people seem to forget, in Elex. You are the biggest mofo the world has ever seen. You are the boss. The Beast of beastmen. Yet, after 3 days of not taking your drugs. You have degraded to the king of worms, the king wimps. You can't even swing a rusty axe anymore. Let alone, holding one of your guns. You're the OverWarlord. After 3 days of sleep, you're the one eaten by rats. It makes no sense what so ever. Neither from a design, balancing nor lore and especially from a makings sense/disbelief standpoint. Game design wise, ideas like the Jetpack are good. But the implementation is below abysmal. And the poor animations truly ruin the rest of the broken game. Remember the Candle Problem in the Witcher 3? In Elex, its the companions and the chairs. Plain stupid. QC testing? Nope. Again, if you saw better in the past 20 years. You should expect more than something poor as this game in end 2017. And Severance - Blade of Darkness, a 16 year old game from 2001, still beats the living crap out of all the mentioned games above, in the combat department! So yes, games were better in the past, at least when it comes to combat! Thats 98% of the core gameplay element. Let that sink in for a moment. What do you do in the mentioned games? You fight! What does not work? The fighting! Look, Im the first to admit, how much flaws BoD had. It was a short and linear game. It has its fair share of bugs and glitches. But compared to modern games, these glitches are a minor nuisance. Simply because the gameplay is so good in BoD. I don't care if my character stumbles down the stairs, instead of walking. I don't care if i fall to my death, because the jump decided to stop in mid air. I reload in mere seconds. And proceed without further thoughts to my next opponent, so i can slash it into tiny pieces. With awesome moves and weapons. And that works. When i die in combat, its my fault. And not a cheap shot from a faulty developer and bad game design he believes to be good. I could continue with Zelda BotW and rip it a new anus hole, it really deserves one. Even more so the people who praise this game to the heavens! I also talked in greater detail about the Witcher 3 faults on other videos. So i kept it short here. And comparing Morrowind to its modern dumbed down Skyrim iteration would blow this already long comment out of orbit. Did i have fun playing Skyrim. Yes i had, for the time being. Is it a good game? Hell NO! The moment i startet playing the game in a legit way, following the quests and such. Speaking with people, and not exploring the world while stealing and killing everything that moves. The game literally died, in front of my eyes. There is simply nothing that works right, or is worthwhile. Many older games, good old games, retro games. No matter how people wanna call them. Are higher quality productions, than modern games. Im not looking back at these games, while wearing pink goggles. I still play them! Aside from Divinity Original Sin 2. Not a single modern game is worth the asking price. In every single gameplay & design department, they lack effort, coherency and quality! *Modern Video Games do more wrong than right* | *Old Video Games do more right than wrong* The dumbing down of the industry is a real problem. Not a feeling or fiction.
Fantastic rant man. I'm interested to hearing what you have to say about the Witcher 3, as I feel that game is vastly overrated and is setting a very bad example for RPGs. Or perhaps you can link to the videos in which you discuss it in the comments section?
@Dragon Slayer Smough I can't speak about BotW, but about Dark Souls: I really like it (the first one, also played the 3rd one, which isn't as great IMO). I love it because it's unforgiving (and pretty fair) and it really let's you explore, learn, figure things out. When I heard about it, I did rush to get it and kept myself for being spoiled. And defeating the first black knight was so rewarding. Or the feel I had when I finally found a pretty-early branch & areas & bosses when I was like level 30 and more than half of the game finished. I loved that the game actually made it so I can skip it by not paying attention and only later realize. And other things. It's a game which delivers great satisfaction for you finding/figuring out things. And it has quite some a bunch of things to be discovered. Getting back to your question, you have to agree that the combat mostly boils down to attack, dodge-roll, with some movement involved in order to both evade some more and to recover stamina. And especially against bosses, it's quite repetitive, having to poke at their feet/asses, roll, and move around them non-stop. The roll mentioned by Gunder Hermann is too OP and worse - is in many cases the only option. All in all I really like the game (can't wait for the remaster, so I can finally play it normally on my Win 10), but it can still grow in the coherence & diveresity department.
Well I thought it was pretty good. Role playing as Geralt was fun, only this weird Highlight mechanic when investigation stuff felt really artifical. But story and world building was incredible, everything felt like a remotly real place. So why do you think for RPGs the Witcher is bad? Again I think its probably one of the best (western action)RPGs since the first Gothic. For reference, I played the following RPG´s: Gothic 1-3, Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout NV, Pokemon blue - saphire, Dark souls 1-2 , Sacred (good diablo clone), Fallout 4, Darkest Dungeon, Grim Dawn and Witcher 3. Maybe forgot one or two.
I was born in 94, Its not nostalgia, the sheer creativity of the developers of the 80s is simply superior, they were nerds, they were pioneers, they were figuring crap out as they went, they experimented all the time, making games was fun and not a business that billed higher than hollywood movies and people were not in financial global crisis so they were happy to support this risky new era. 2020 games are too safe, too samey, too "for everyone", I have more faith in indie developers than big names like nintendo, because big developers are too big for their own good, they are complacent to investors, they no longer make games for fun, wether you agree or not is up to you, but I will continue enjoying old games more.
The truth no one will flat out admit, is that we are all wasting our time fumbling around with *_actual toys._* I don't care if your SNES cart, PS5, or Steam purchase costed you a liver. We're all manchildren & womanchildren playing with fucking toys, and there's nothing you can do to argue against this fact.
If the criteria was only graphics, then a game like Ultima Underworld would be seriously outdated. But in all other respects, Ultima Underworld, surpasses all present-day games
Weskal5490', comment is correct! The older games had more interactive gameplay and focused design. The stories were good, colors better even if graphics were not super realistic. But the gameplay was fun and kept me busy while the rewards were better. To be fair, it depends on what you are looking for and what expert " you need".
A little of both. Older games were better from the perspective that they would keep you entertained for hours, weeks, or even months and there were lots of stuff to still unlock within the game itself and you didn't need to play with other people online to have fun, (i.e Playstation 2 games and Super Nintendo). Whereas Newer games, (i.e, Playstation 4 and Xbox one), it's all about online playing with other people (some who are hackers), always badmouthing each other (whether for fun or seriously), buying DLC of unlockables from games that this stuff should already be in, developers and gamers worry too much about how the game looks more than anything (which is understandable) and they get updates to fix any video game bugs these days. While I should be with the rest of world as far as gaming, I still stick to my Playstation 2 and Original Xbox because to me they had much more fun games than what they're churning out now. Yes, visual-wise they're a massive step down from Xbox one and Playstation 4, but I'll take games being fun over graphics.
I guess it's a matter of perspective, I'm similar to your age and I think older games are better because back then people would get more excited about games much more than today. And there is something ti be said about the PS1 and PS2 eras. So many fun games. Shadow of the Collosus, Kingdom hearts 1 and 2 , Okami and so many others have stood the test of time.
Ii think the greatness of those older days and the RPGs, was the great stories mixed with the simple to play action. The graphics back then sometimes were lacking, but you could have fun. For me, having an open world to explore is key. Then good graphics BUT I NEED colorful graphics, which is why I enjoy Stardew Valley better than Skyrim on some days. On other days, I need Skyrim. When a complex rpg with depth and good skill level accomplishments, I play Morrowind. When I want something simple where I crave the desire to BUILD my world, then I play Travellers Rest ir Minecraft!
Old games are better always will be modern times are so fake all the once great talent from the old days is gone retired or moved on and wont ever come back today's game making is catching lightning in a bottle yes there are people who will say its nostalgia and stop living in the past but they didnt grow up to appreciate these titles period
Hamza Khaliq I agree. I’m 14, I never owned a ps2 or GameCube, and I have to say that older video games on those consoles are a lot better. It’s like Nowadays, game developers have the cpu speed and budget and skill to make good games, but it’s like they don’t know how My favourite games are 80s arcade games (like the ones they have at car dealerships) and open world games from 2004 - 2012 (Spider-Man 2, simpsons hit and run, old minecraft) games mostly just piss me off now. The new minecraft updates are terrible, 1.16 felt like a shitty mod, where they used to add all sorts of cool stuff to the game. And a lot of games are just letting users fill in the holes with mods, or ripping people off by putting half the game behind a 200$ paywall. I feel like if people made games the way they USED to, but with TODAY’s technology, they would be so fun! But that’s not the case. Some of my old games are super Mario wii, Spider-Man 2, gta San Andreas (maybe I should get 5, it could be good), Simpson’s hit and run, and beta 1.7.3 minecraft. Most of the games (about 80%) I have emulated are good, for new games I can only think of the 80$ nintendo games I won’t pay for.
@@mr.jamster8414 I think most gamers nowadays care more about graphics and CGI than the actual gameplay which sucks. The gameplay should be the most important thing in a video game. I'd rather play a good game with bad graphics than a bad game with good graphics.
@@H.K.5 I agree with you on this statement, if a game plays good, then it's good. But the "old games were just better" is very much moot. Tony Hawk 1+2 is a good example of having the right people to do such a great freaking job bringing back something classic and make it better as or than before. If you don't believe in such a thing, then I do not know what I can tell you.
@@MrMonsterKen I was talking about most video game creators and gamers, not all of them. I do believe that the right people could bring back something classic and make it better than ever but most game creators won't do that nowadays.
i dont even need to hear abt this question, im literally a kid which wasnt even born when the games i like were released, so basically, its not nostalgia, they were better
Part nostalgia part truth... definitely games used to be more consistent before ps4 came out... everything is focused on graphics and cutscenes nowdays
I still think old games were better but it also depends what you compare them to. I see people compare modern games to old games all the time but the problem is the way they go about doing it. They basically take whatever they play and compare it to the best games of the 80's,90's and 00's rather than compare games on a similar level. I guess that would be different for everyone though as everyone has different tastes so you got to put that into consideration. You also had less people playing back then, smaller teams and not as much restraint in some areas. I still go back and play some of my games I grew up with in the 80's onward to the 00's. Some of those games are still unique to this day or has that certain artistic charm that pulls me back. I also find some of them better handcrafted, had gameplay or mechanics I enjoyed and they had to make sure it was going to be good. Granted I was dying for some first person dungeon crawling for the longest time then Grimrock 1&2 came out and those were great but it won't prevent me from going back to play Stonekeep, DM or M&M 3 for example. My problem with most games now is that they are becoming too simple let alone easy and I'm not talking about QOL improvements. Every now and then a game comes out to quench my thirst but I eventually still find my way backwards to my older library till the next thing comes out to satisfy me then it repeats. Games were just more unique back then where everything anymore is just a copy paste but better looking and maybe a mechanic or two different (For better or worse) but I also understand theres only so many ways to make a game different after a genre's been beat to the death for half a century. I have been blinded my nostalgia though recently. Decided to go play SimCopter after not touching it for 20 years and boy I got burnt out so quick...it's fun in short bursts but that's about it. Cutthroats Terror On the High Seas though, still excellent despite the possible chance for a game breaking bug to happen or dumb AI. Wish someone would make another game like that, Sea Dogs is fun but I like strategy sims.
Certain older games are better than new games but not all of them are. Most of them are better because of the story, content, and mechanics. Some of these old games might have poor graphics, controls, or glitches but thank god for emulation and romhacks/iso patches which can fix some of these issues for the games that don't get a remake or remaster.
If you like our work and want to support us, you can become our patrons. www.patreon.com/gaminghd
Hey folks, remember to press that bell (🔔) button next to the subscribe button and select the "Send me all notifications for this channel" option , that way you'll get a notification whenever we post a good video ! :)
Join Now on our Discord Server ! discord.gg/CZSXJwy
You know, I love Skyrim, but I think everyone has a right to their opinion. Having said that, I gotta wonder, how good is Dragon Age III in your opinion?
ha, nice, dude is still looking at comments 4 years on.
I feel like there's so, so much potential for this subject that you haven't tapped into at all.
It's funny. When I was a kid gaming in the late 90's/early 2000's I used to get so excited about what the future of gaming would bring. Now that the future is here all I want to do is go back to those days :/
Same.
This is fax but i wasn’t born in the 90s
Same...
Same although for me I mainly played CRPGs and I miss the days when the games I played were tough, unforgiving, and you had to learn the mechanics unlike now where you can pick up a game and it holds your hand through it.
Same. It's so sad.
As I get older, I can't help but miss the old days. And I don't just mean gaming or movies. I mean back in the times when I was younger, more naive, more excited, more adventurous in so many ways. Now, my brothers are nearly grown men just as I am, my parents are in their middle age, my grandparents are beginning to pass away, my friends have all moved on and started families of their own, and for the first time in my entire life... I feel my mortality.
I'm an older gamer, and I have played across many platforms over the years and enjoyed lots of great games. It may be just nostalgia, but for me the older games seemed to be so much more immersive. By today's standards they are without question inferior in graphics, sound. But to me it isn't about framerates, pixel resolution, multi channel surround sound and large onscreen color palettes. Its gameplay. And games that offer great gameplay never needed to rely on superior graphics or sound for gamers because they were too busy just enjoying playing the game. Today we have extremely powerful gaming platforms, and while some brilliant games are still being made that offer great gameplay, a lot of games are simply just junk - heavy on superior graphics and sound but shallow in the gameplay and play and feel like you are just watching a B grade movie than actually playing a game.
It's pretty simple. Replay some of the older games. Some of them still hold up. Others don't.
Old games still holding up:
- Anachronox
- Homeworld
- The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
- Baldur's Gate 2
- Outcast
- Super Mario Bros
Old games that are holding up somewhat:
- Lords of Midnight, on the ZX Spectrum
- Rune
- The Legend of Zelda
- Doom
Old games that aren't really holding up:
- Drakan
- Elite, on the ZX Spectrum
- Grand Theft Auto 3
- Omikron: The Nomad Soul
I would leave 'surround' sound as important part of gameplay. It's hard to enjoy any game without decent headphones, surround sound. Maybe because I'm addicted to stealth games.
honestly in terms of art style I think you could make the argument that many old games look better. (especially because they aren't smeared in temporal AA)
@Anonymous
Sure.
As I said, I'm an older gamer so many of my favorites were around before a lot of later gen gamers were perhaps even born. That said, some of the classics I've played over the years include;
Amiga 500:
Dungeon Master / Dungeon Master - Chaos Strikes Back, Dungeon Master 2.
Black Crypt
Eye of the Beholder 1 & 2
Hired Guns
Elvira
Captive
Chaos Engine
Cadaver
Fire & Ice
Superfrog
Megalomania
Populus 1 & 2
Powermonger
Leisure Suit Larry
Kings Quest series
Conquest of Camelot
Codename Icemen
Colonel's Bequest
Secret Of Monkey Island
Cybercon 3
Hero's quest - Quest for glory
Starglider 2
Damocles - Mercenary 2
Frontier (Elite 2)
Geoff Crammond's Formula 1 Grand Prix
Super Nes:
Donkey Kong Country 1, 2 & 3
Legend of Zelda (LOZ), a Link to the Past
Lylat Wars (Starfox)
Equinox
N64:
LOZ - Ocarina of Time / LOZ Majora's Mask
Turok 1 & 2
Quake
Golden Eye
Perfect Dark
Banjo Kazooie 1 & 2
Jet Force Gemini
PC:
Homeworld
Half Life
B17
Grand Prix 4
Baldur's Gate 1 & 2
Torment
Age of Empires 2
Wolfenstein
Deus X
Doom
Ultima series
I won't list later consoles as you'd probably have a good or better knowledge of what's out there, but I will mention Halo, Dark Souls, Skyrim. Another one continually evolving in development is Elite Dangerous.
@@weskal5490 right dude old games wins fun factor l play Sega Genesis PS1 PS2 and my feeling when l play it can't be matched by any modern games or consoles
no matter how good graphic the modern games are,the old games still wins in my heart
When all you want to do is sit down, have fun playing some games and escape from reality, but the games realism brings you back to reality. X_X
Yeah exactly I don’t want realistic stuff 😂
"Were Old Games Better, or is it just Nostalgia?"
- Why not both?
@@uuamenator true
No old games are bullshit compared to the new ones
Maybe your just used to pixels instead of the newest graphics
No
@Chaitnya Singh also not true, ever heard of indie games?
For me personally, 2002-2006 were the best years for gaming in general. So much awesome and groundbreaking stuff came out back then.
2007-2009 was imo the best years for gaming
Sonic 06!
The 2000s decade was the greatest decade of video gaming ever.
It had the best of both worlds.
Relatively great graphics and creative engaging gameplay.
Oh and no DLC either.
@@jacobh7188 PS1 PS2 are unmatched
@@jacobh7188 Yeah but it wasn't as ground breaking as 2000 to 2006 or 7 great games but all the progress was owed to the years before it, most of it slowed down dramatically after that, some perfected the progress tho. There's just no talent anymore. Crackdown was such a huge letdown
The problem with new games is they're cashing in too much on realism over other important aspects of what makes a game good, when the hardware capabilities and other development practicalities are still not enough to facilitate this yet.
"The problem with new games is they're cashing in too much on realism" It's funny you think this is somehow exclusive to new games when it never was
Compare NBA 2k20 to NBA Street Vol. 2. A lot of people like NBA Street better, especially casual sports fans
"Better" doesn't mean much. I think they were more special and endearing and more effort was put into game mechanics. They were more special because many games were made for niche audiences with high standards, like Flight Simulator games. They were more endearing because games were made by fewer people and as such a lot of individual personality went into the games, with less top-down management. And the game mechanics were more refined because graphics engines were inferior and therefore there was less time spent on putting detail into the game world. For instance, a game like Deus Ex only has 2 death animations. If they'd spent more time on this aspect then maybe other details, like the level design, might have suffered. I think Morrowind is a very good example of a game that retained classic design philosophies but is still visually interesting enough to be playable today without needing nostalgia to help it.
I really didn't need nostalgia to enjoy picking up classics I had missed in my youth, like Arcanum and Baldurs Gate and whatnot. I always find this argument quite nonsensical. It was not nostalgia that made me enjoy those games for most part.
I have tried to pick up morrowind a few times and what scares me off is not the visuals but rather the overly complex mechanics.
@@davidgribble6313 yeah people praise morrowind but ignore the very mediocre gameplay mechanics
I think that older games tried new things more often, which meant every game had something unique about it. But dont get me wrong there were a lot of copycats too
Old games were better in some specific ways.
They were not constrained by having enormous budgets and team sizes (yes, that's a massive constraint!). If you have to sell 10 million copies to break even, what does that do to the gameplay? It's going to be a clone of a tried and true game. It's going to be a narrative driven game full of cut-scenes and other crap to appeal to casual gamers. That's going to force the game to become rather linear, hand held, scripted. It's going to be playtested until there is no place where you can get stuck or lost, until the difficulty curve is a gentle slope that quickly levels off. It's going to be OK, but there's nothing memorable and there's no replay value; you're just going to consume the game and then move along.
Game developers had not figured out how a genre were "supposed" to work, therefor there were more experimentation, and team sizes and budgets were much smaller, so you could afford to experiment. Most games, even lazy "me too" Doom clones at least attempted something new or interesting.
Another way in which older games were better is that you have at your finger tips access to 30 years of gaming history, and when you compare those games to the limited selection of games released in just the last 12 months you will have a lot more games, a lot more timeless classics, a lot more genres in that 30 year span; and you're not going to have played even a quarter of the good games those years offered. That's just a game of numbers.
The spirit of older games largely lives on in indie games, after having hibernated for the early 00's in mods.
Depends on the franchise though.
+maximaldinotrap 90% of everything is crap, and it's always been like that; possibly more so in the past because there was less filter.
Take one of the most inventive games ever made, from which the modern western RPG sprung almost fully formed; it was the flight sim of dungeon crawling, the first immersive game (any category), the game that inspired ID software to use textures and the direct ancestor to Thief, System Shock and Deus ex that still today seem ahead of their time as gameplay somehow has regressed.
It did about a dozen unproven things, e.g.:
Physics simulation of jumping, falling and swiming in a 3D world
Real time textured 3D with slopes, bridges, ability to look up and down
Playing only one character and not a party of characters like other first person (non-real time) RPGs
A persistent faction/reputation system where most NPCs were not automatically friends nor enemies
A mouse driven first person interface in an RPG
An automap that would slowly reveal itself as you explore that you could take notes on
The ability to defeat most puzzles in several different ways (do you beat the door down and get durability damage, do you do a quest to get a key, do you bribe a guard...?).
If that had been a high budget title like todays AAA games, some cunt in a business suit tell them there are too many technological risks and they need to get rid of every single one of the innovative features and base it on a currently existing and proven concept; make it bland, inoffensive, pasteurized, playtested to death and mediocre; but with great production values.
This type of game can only come from a low budget and a small team that can take risks without someone telling them not to.
I think it is very similar to how modern hollywood films are also never too innovative if they have a big budget. its always just more of the same gimmick, a sequel, prequel, remake of something already pretty successful, or a new big entry of a franchise.
games nowadays have to follow the same trend to make the money back.
This is why I mostly retro game or play indie games nowadays. AAA industry is nothing but pretty games with absolute braindead gameplay design that insults my intelligence and does nothing to give my brain any stimulation like the games I grew up playing did..
I think old games are better because it wasn't about fps (as nowadays) it was music and art.
I mean it didn't bother anyone if some game run slow or bad fps.
I think what the mordern gaming industry really lacks is focus you look at the amount of people required to develop new games it becomes nearly impossible to have a cohesive design while older games have a more individual/unified vision of what game and story they want to make.
I think games are still trying to be that one game we all dreamed about. The one “about forest elves and villains where you can raid cowravans and jump and enemies are 3d and dead bodies are 3d and we're ready to wait for tow yers” (that's my best attempt at translating that old Russian meme).
But in attempt to be everything at once they lose focus and we get a pile of random things not working together properly. Useless survival mechanics on top of looter shooter game design with a deep story that actually lacks any meaning because it was completely rewritten during last months of development or something like that.
Excellent comment, "ore-tears"!
I can safely say I'm not blinded by nostalgia since I didn't really play any of the games coming out when I was younger and didn't really start getting into gaming until the Xbox came out, yet all my favorite games now are from the 90's or early 2000's.
I do remember my brother trying to teach me to play Age of Empires before I knew how to read. I remember The Lion King for the Sega as well. Didn't really go down well with me.
Felipe Correia Borges
I know what you mean by that special feel, it’s the one you get from sort of sky - coloured games, like sonic green hills or wii sports or old minecraft or similar things. I thought only I felt that. I heard of something called ASMR, and thought It was that, but it was something different. Punk rock and 90s rock gives me a similar vibe. If I get enough of it, I sort of shiver, like scratching a blackboard; but instead it feels good.
@Kalle Vilenius @Me King Tiger both of you guys may be in the minority then. I think some of it comes down to nostalgia, but in your guys cases I'm not really sure, you may just genuinely like it but that doesn't mean that all games were better back then. The relativity between bad and good games have remained basically the same since the late 80s. Indie games or not
Age of empires is one of the GOATS
Can’t be nostalgia when you weren’t even alive when it came out
There's a lot of great old games and a lot of great new games, it's just a shame that most big budget developers don't seem to want to create masterpieces and instead just go for the easy money i.e. the common denominator.
You said it all!
Masterpieces are only a liability if you're in it for the money. Better to release a steady stream of mediocrity.
Older games were better because when they released them, you got the whole game and it was finished. No DLC, day one patches, oodles of glitches, and the price was right. I had a PS4 for 2 weeks and I was disgusted, not just with the lackluster games, but the shifty salesman tactics.
It is actually both. Some old games *ARE* better, others were great for their time and stand as classics, but dont age well.
When it comes down to writing quality, there is little link to age. When it comes down to storytelling techniques, whilst we have some clear advances, we also have some old games from the 90s and 2000s going toe to toe or winning comparisons due to how well they use level design or gameplay to tell stories.
Graphics are irrelevant to game quality. Art Style though, is more important and modern tech enables MORE possible art styles. Still even games before the possible photorealism era can hold their own with their well made art.
AI and physics? Irony is, most new games have shit AI and dont use their impressive physics engines well. STALKER beats modern FPS games in AI, all of them. Half Life 2 and Crysis have lesser physics but use it better than new games so the effect is - the old games win in a technological contest, important ones too...
Gameplay is very subjective but I do think that the rougher, sometimes harder and less fair older games can and do hold their own or even win against new games. And I am not biased, whilst I played many games back in the day, I have missed many too. And I compare the old to the new head on... and the old often wins.
This is normal for very developed art forms like literature, but IMHO it should not happen for young ones like video games, at least not to this degree.
Battlefrond 2 (2005 ), Medal of honor allied assault (2001), NFS Underground Underground to Undercover, Doom original - Doom 3, Far cry 1 - 3
Your comment describes exactly my thoughts, especially about how quickly the art form declined to commercialist garbage , and nothing else is allowed anymore. It's the only genre of art where people have come to believe quick accessibility equals 'how polished the game is'. Fucking insane that nobody sees that and everyone hails new games as any individualistic trait of the art is stripped away. Disgusting.
I'm coming to a sense that DBZ Budokai 3 was a game great for its time but maybe not good today. NBA Street - NBA Street V3 were great then and great now.
As someone who plays mostly Old or so called Retro Games. I can factually say, old games are generally better than these god awful, dumbed down modern video games.
You just have to look and play Morrowind, then Oblivion, and then Skyrim. The quality heavily degraded in only two titles. Morrowind could almost be described as a Novel, where Skyrim is LEGOs in comparison...
Morrowind was the last Elder Scrolls Games, where you had Spears, Levitation Spell and spell creation in general.
Then Oblivion took away, Underwater Combat. But you could use Magic and Melee Weapons at the same time. That was good.
And Skyrim took away even that. You can't use 2H weapons like Bows and two Handers anymore. You have to put the weapon way, to use magic. Its retarded.
In Skyrim, the entire melee combat progression system was so dumbed down. You cannot disarm, or do other special attacks anymore. If reaching a certain skill level, like you could in Oblivion.
And don't get me started, how bad the entire Destruction Spell-Tree is. Magic does not increase with the level of the Spell Tree. Your lvl 1 firefart will never get stronger. Even with lvl 100 points and complete Mastery of Destruction. While a melee fighter will break through all your magic attacks, while one shotting you with a simple shield bash.
Not to mention the idiocy of -100% mana usage you can enchant on items. They put zero balancing and effort into the magic system.
And this was only the Elder Scrolls series. Yet this dumbing down, basically applies to all other companies and the garbage they release these days.
Gothic 4 - Arcania, CoD, Battlefield, Battlefront 2, Shadow of More Greed, Asinine Greed, Fart Cry 5, DA Inquisition. All these games, compared to previous installments have been, not only dumbed down. They are bad by design. Ranging from anti consumer Microtrashactions, breaking the game for some massive grinding.
To using arbitrary leveling systems in Asinine Greed Origins, that you can't kill higher level mobs. Because they are simply at "higher" level. Or you do only 1 HP damage.
To completely overpowering everything and one shotting enemies with homing arrows from around the corner. Zero game balance!
And not to mention all the bugs, upon bugs, upon bugs. DA Inquisition is not only questionable from a purely game design point of view. It is downright bug broken!
This game crashes, often. And if it doesn't crash, basically every character animation bugs out every 5 minutes or so.
The one class who's bugged the most, is the Archer.
His backwards shotgun flip, can catapult you completely out of the combat area, by using it once! Effectively disengaging combat as a whole.
Im not talking about accidentally standing at the border of the combat area and popping that ability. No. Im talking about standing right in front of the enemy. Because that is a close range ability. Im am talking about flying & clipping backwards, over a massive distance through solid rocks.
The arms of the characters and their weapons also start to twist, as if they have some kind of algospasm in their limbs. Picking up a Veil Torch, suddenly holding both, the weapon and the torch in the same hand. While the arm either behaves like a long stick. Or twists and twitches like a floppy dong. Same goes for the player closing these rifts...
The loading times are atrocious, if you load this game from an HDD. I counted up to 1 minutes and 20 seconds in worst case scenarios. More about 50-60sec on average.
While using an SSD. You may never reach the 30 sec barrier. Average loading is about 10-15sec. How inept are these developers? Fallout 4 behaves no different btw.
Speaking about questionable game design. I only mention the War Table and its Mobile gaming-like features here. DAI grabs all the possible shite, no one should ever have in his game! This game, is an insult. And if this game would not be called Dragon Age, i would have buried where it belongs. Under a mountain of horse dung!
btw. never touche the XBox 360 version of this game. You'll start scratching yourself with a razor blade, if you do!
@@xdisrrptx Visually, no. But in terms of gameplay, content, mechanics, difficulty, old school is a lot better. This is a no brainer because creating computer graphics now takes a lot of TIME and MONEY, which is probably why the other aspects of the games are left behind.
todays games are aim and shoot data trash with pretty graphics for degenerates
Bruh now 90% of games have dlc’s like battlefront,cod,Batman Arkham knight,maybe cyberpunk too
Back then we buy the game we get the WHOLE GAME nothing’s missing
Do you know what were missing? Patches.
i miss that
Games these days need dlc and parts means to buy for more to get more fun and the game itself is not finished. I guess fun is not free anymore
Some games add DLC after its release.
Rule of thumb, show the games to someone that's never played a video game before, or at least imagine you're showing it to someone like that. In some cases they may choose the older games, and in some cases they may choose the newer ones.
Sonic on the Genesis is definitely better than the modern Sonic games, even Adventures 1 and 2.
Doom 2016 however will be seen as better than the original, simply because the graphics and more complex level design.
Mario games may be, for the most part, seen as consistent across time with how good they are.
Race and flight simulators are superior now due to the physics engines and overall realism.
Race and flight arcades however may be consistent across time.
Newer games have better graphics and physics, and some have deeper stories than anything possible on older games.
Old games don't have things like loot boxes though, and the DLC back then was only on PC in what used to be called "expansion packs". Any "DLC" for consoles, even in the early to mid 2000's, was always just packaged as a new and fully featured game. Like the Sims Busting Out.
With regards to multiplayer, it's a mixed bag. Online multiplayer is more of a thing these days on consoles, but split screen play is disappearing. Why can't I play Doom 2016 with some friends on a couch? Why do I need the internet to play multiplayer with it? I miss when playing multiplayer was a social thing, not just idiots screaming at strangers online.
Mechaghostman2 yeah, i hate playing online, doesn’t really feel like I’m talking to my friends.
I've been thinking a lot about this subject as well, since even though I tend to buy a lot of the newer games I always end up playing the older ones with a few exceptions. Sure many older games have play-ability issues, take Dune 2 vs Dune 2000 as an example, I used to love Dune 2, but now I find Dune 2000 to be the superior experience due to a few mechanics and GUI improvements. Sure many new games look absolutely gorgeous, but somehow many don't have the "charm and personality" that many older games had, as an example I rather play the original Settlers 2 over Settlers 2 10th anniversary.
Older games also tended to be less scripted, a shooter was a shooter, a modern military FPS is often just a fancy spectacle with scripted instances. You get to watch what the developers wanted you to watch and do exactly what they intended, experimentation, trial and error and exploration is often none existent, playing most new FPS games reminds me of being spoon fed as a baby.
The few games that have drawn me in recently have all been either indie games, from a smaller publisher or remasters of something old, the experience tend to be if not unique at least enjoyable to the extent that I can't wait to play it again. The same can't be said about all the triple AAA titles I have in my steam library, not only are most of them a much shallower none interesting experience, but they are riddled with DLC's, micro transactions and other shite which don't let me experience the game but instead it keeps me reminded that I would do so much better if I had that item for 5$ or that DLC which have that 1 unit in it that's crucial or what ever.
Old games had charm and personality, sure they were not perfect but plenty of times the experience was so much deeper and more intriguing, it was like a good TV series, you wanted to play it more, just one more turn, just one more map etc etc. Modern games are often like a Michael Bay movie, full of fancy CGI and explosions, but lack any meningsfull experience and the feel that you gained anything of value, you could just watch another random movie to get a quick fix but meh it's just that a quick fix, not anything deeper, not something worth coming back to.
Excellent writing.I mostly think old games were better cuz they were more simple, not have details like modern games.Detail seems nice in first but actually people can lost themselves in a lot of details and miss the actual picture.In old days you dont have that graphic or ui or game mechanic detail but yet you would easily see the big picture and enjoy the game, but in modern games you cant even just enjoy the game cuz of extreme details that prevents you from the main game line.Like amazing graphics.You will want more graphic as the games developing but in old games, you were happy with the 'trash' graphics cuz it was enough for you and you knew thats gonna make you happy.
Major problem with the modern games are not the games totally, instead its problem with the human psychology.Which i bond it to "dissatisfaction" or "gluttony".Modern games make us saturated with plenty of contets, while old games lacked of content but yet it keeped our desire to play.Proof to this, is games like COD
I am 21 yo guy, played games since when i was 5.And i still play games, i can see the difference between oldies and newbies.
New announced games are not taking my attention a bit now.I dont even wanna play them
This! And I miss the manuals that came with games, I used to read them before I went to sleep.
new modern games made me feel gaming annoying back in the days i had lots of fun with nes snes n64 and many more i could play for days new modern games makes you mad or tired i dont like gaming mutch anymore but i might go back to retro gaming again..
The answer is definitely nostalgia. Oldschool games were like an event, I remember on every Friday after school we would go to the video rental store put all out money together and rent our reserve copy of the latest game for $2.00 for the weekend, we would go over to my house and play it while drinking our 50 cent 2 liter RC cola and bags of chips, it was amazing, we would talk about every stupid thing teenagers talk about while playing video games. It was a routine, during the day we would be on our bikes or playing sports but by 6:00PM we would either play games or watch scary or action movies, there was no internet, cellphones or anything like that, everybody had a mom and dad and everyone in the neighborhood knew each other, it was fantastic. I wish in the future someone would recreate the 80's and experience what we did, it was wonderful.
Old games were better in some aspects, they were good at keeping you playing for the appropriate amount of time.
I can still load up doom/duke nukem and have a fun few hours playing and shooting around.
New games try to keep you playing for much much longer which often means less fun, but for a longer period of time.
It's crazy but I have more fun with older games. And I'm 19 years old now
I’m 14, and thought I completely lost interest in games, but it turns out I just don’t like the newer games.
Same, I’m 16 and I’ve been a retro player since I was 12. I tried to be a nitro player too, by getting an Xbox One S and some games for it. When I turned it on, I had to make a password, and I had to update it and it took forever. The games weren’t that good either. They weren’t as challenging as the old ones, The graphics look too realistic, and the new games cost more money. I just couldn’t stand nitro games so I just use my Xbox One as a DVD player, and I use my Retro Consoles for my games.
Same. I love kingdom hearts 1 graphics even though Ik they look “bad”
me to man im 15 and i still put in gta vc in my drive at least onse !
Lol similar here, 16 and the newest console I own is the ps3, even then is still play my ps2 and even nintendo/sega/atari games regularly
I have to disagree with you. I think people confuse better design with hand holding.
A lot of the things Skyrim left out I felt were pretty surface level. Things like spell making were cool and all but I mean what’s stopping you from dual wielding two effects you want? Some things are cut for the sake of newer mechanics.
Skyrim did a lot of things I liked. Like bringing back in world fast travel, crossbows, introducing followers, taking the headache from building a character, arguably the best leveling system in the series, PROPER necromancy (seems like a huge one everyone forgets) and with the streamlining of character creation it gave you better control of what kind of character you wanted. Gone are the days of spreading yourself too thin because you hadn’t experimented with like 3 different characters before committing because you knew zero about the leveling and number crunching. Now you just do what you want and invest points into it. No more breaking fatigue into like 2 different stats. Just place the points in whichever pool you wanted.
It’s roleplay without the baggage. DND uses small numbers because it doesn’t want them to get in the way and I think crpgs forget that.
As for choice? TES never had it besides like daggerfalls ending.
My feeling is that almost every classical good game was surpassed by a later game, but gaming in general sucks way more ass now than it did "back in the day". Gaming was a niche enthusiast medium in the past. If you were a gamer or a game developer then, it's because you were passionate about games and wanted the medium to thrive and evolve. It couldn't be any other way. Nowadays, the gaming is shaped by corporate execs, who don't give a shit about gaming, different types of political activists, who don't actually give a shit about gaming, and a whole audience of people who game simply because it's a popular medium.
There's enough said about the first 2 groups, but the latter group is rarely mentioned. Those are people with shitty tastes who want games to be more like and try to evaluate games for the qualities of other medium. Look at the "story rich" craze we have nowadays. I'm not against a good story in a game, but how did it happen that a game can be praised for its story despite shitty gameplay? Look at The Last of Us. The gameplay is typical tired derivative 3rd person console action. Yet the game was chosen as the game of the year by many critics and praised by audience, mainly for its story. Who are those people? Where did they come from? There was the "PC gaming master race vs console peasants" meme, but nowadays there isn't this line anymore. A lot of PC gamers nowadays don't remember the time when PC gaming was great.
TLDR: Good games are still being made. The absolute quality of games keeps getting better (not necessarily on average, but in the best examples). But the people in the gaming suck nowadays. Games are played by people who don't love or understand gaming. Games are made by people who treat it like fast food business. Gaming is covered by people who care more about identity politics.
like the people making a lot of game just don't get what a game is, what are mechanics, and why you would add them, and that they should be unique.
Game companies started to become something like "I don't know what I'm doing, but I have the power to do it"
and that basically since games started making graphics their main meat in game, and that they even started to say you need a new pc for this game.
that's where it just went downhill, pushing the technologies,
but the only thing being pushed are the graphics with bad optimizations,
not the actual gameplay into new unique experiences, and most times the experience and actual game become worse than they were over decade ago.
I still have yet to believe ps2 games like Shadow of the Colossus still beats most games that are coming out in raw mechanic complexity of Colossus, and how you approach and fight them, but ps2, GameCube, Xbox game does beat modern games.
that's ridiculous, there's more technology and funding and what not but it's being wasted in modern games in literally something much less, then the complexity of approach and gameplay of a single Colossus in Shadow of the Colossus, that game is almost 2 decades old.
how can a 2-decade old game bring more fun and complexity and entertainment, and a shocking ending, then a modern game that has more technologies.
Hi res graphics are truly what killed games, it stopped from being an actual game, to a low-quality cinematic mess.
If people are going to make a game and use the technologies exclusively for graphics alone for what's apparent.
Just don't make a game and make a movie or series.
a game isn't a movie or a series, literally people making modern games now just don't even know what they're doing.
You make a game, or you make a movie, pick one, don't say you're making a game when your main resources are going into cutscenes, graphics, and actor celebrity voice acting, that's a freaking movie not a game, get your crap together people companies out there.
it's like making a Strawberry ice-cream made with chocolate as its main-only ingredient, you can't call that a strawberry ice cream; that's chocolate ice cream.
let me just say this and i hope you read it. games are only as good as they are designed and developed to be. games that are made with detailed stories, likable/relate able characters, polished gameplay. and quality control.
as a society we have become "accustomed to accept mediocrity" and by that i mean we accept the AAA developers are gonna make B grade garbage. Throw in broken micro transactions. and just refuse to correct and fix game breaking or immersion breaking bugs.
Now i'm not saying that older games are without bugs but the bugs and glitches we see today WOULD NEVER be sell able 20 years ago. Also don't get me wrong some bugs/glitches are hilarious and should be included in the game like if they were to be considered Easter eggs.
but nostalgia yes is a "quite literal bitch" to overcome. having a new experience and then trying to replicate that alter is IMPOSSIBLE. and every developer wants to try and replicate an experience that has already been done.
So nostalgia cannot be beaten. because when you make the same gameplay with a different story. it just inst there.
Absolutely. That's why a lot of spiritual successors fail to recapture the magic of the old games. they can't catch lightning in a bottle twice.
What I truly miss from old games is their treatment of the gamer as an adult and not an ADD ridden child. Take any modern game and you get a fancy quest marker, very elaborate maps even in settings where such items would be incredibly rare, quest notifications, voluble characters with excessive exposition about what you're supposed to do, etc. The game isn't brave enough to hold you responsible for solving the in-game problems.
Compare that to old games: Fallout 1 - the vault is running out of water, it's up to YOU to find a water chip. You have 150 days, and the only help you get is the vague info about another vault to the east.
Planescape: Torment - you wake up in a mortuary. You don't know who you are, or even your name, but there is an order to "find Pharod" tattooed on your back. It's up to you to find out what the hell is going on.
Silent Hill 2 - James Sunderland comes to the town after receiving a letter from his wife, begging him to find her in Silent Hill. His wife, however, has been dead for the last 3 years. Where in the town do you go? Well, you're as clueless as James in that regard
Modern games try to be immersive by throwing a mountain of content at you, giving you an 'open world', but holding your hand on every step of the way lest the gamer gets confused. Old games were smaller, more compact, but their ( even completely fictional ) worlds were more realistic - you had to pay attention and engage your brains. And that made them more immersive.
Sir you have valid points and you argued them with courtesy and wits.
Well Done.
@@element1111 And spyro,castlevaina,crash bandicoot.The games are literally throwing you into the game, you dont even know what to do.
You can just start playing a random PSX game you've never played before and it's immediately better than any modern game
The PSX had a lot of cheap licenced shovelware.
@@todesziege the shovelware to real game ratio is SEVERELY smaller than any modern console
@@BF-Gator While I'm not sure about that, some basic common sense makes it easy to filter out the shovelware.
@@todesziege Maybe where you live garbage games aren't a problem but here they are
@@BF-Gator I didn't say that, I was talking about the PSX. There it was often easy to spot the bad/low-ambition games; now not so much.
Games are so watered down feels like the souls has been drained out of them . THATS why I love fromsoft so much
I think I can agree with many people around that loot boxes and pay to win transactions are lame at best. But most games are not having those lame elements. And lots of older games are just bad or haven't aged too well. Even from my favorite gaming era, the PSone era, lots of games no feel wrong and dated, not even a glimps of nostalgia can save them. And nobody claiming they play 90% of old games really know what 90% of those old games are like. Maybe they mean 90% of old games they always liked to play. That can't be much nor mean anything. Lots of modernngames from PS2 onward to this day are really good. Only thing that has changed is that I do not have six hours a day to dive deep into a game and I have to reserve my weekends for open gaming time now when as a kid I could play seven days a week.
Older are better less agendas thrown in them they’re less corrupted/more human wasn’t just about money and a lot more mystical/momentism in them especially w the music
Command and Conquer, Deus Ex, Knights of the old Republic - I miss the old games but there are some great indie devs out there that catch the love and detail of gaming.. Like Kerbal space program, undertale, factorio, FTL etc.
So in a nutshell: AAA publishers ruin the market
They were better, required immersion, skill and knowledge.
Now they are all graphics, with dumb stories, no immersion, mod peddling, pointless infinite grind, zero requirement to play due to all the hand fucking holding
I like old graphics better too, they feel more like reality whereas modern games feel like I’m dreaming or something. I like being able to see pixels too, just looks nice.
Games back in those days kept my attention better, because you knew what you wanted and you sought out to play it. Now we have loads of decisions on what to play. Games were also tailored not to audiences but to types of ideas and game decision and design. Now people are forced to make games to suit the majority, and if a niche game is created, it runs the risk of not even selling. At least when games that were niche were made by the bigger market, people played them and were happy, even on NES. Today games are hard for me to digest, the newer ones, I have to go back about 15 years at times on PC to really enjoy a title, indie market is helping fill this need, but not all games are wonderful, a lot of them are expensive copy knock offs of what I grew up to in the 80s.
I think that’s what it is, games were made to tell a story and cater to a genre, now they cater to audiences!
@@mr.jamster8414 Yes, that's true.
That isn’t true. The indie scene fills that niche
@@robertbektas1810 they are getting better at doing that, because the niche market is finally able to produce games that suit that audience.
i say a little of both, limited hardware certainly made the developers get creative, and in some cases it was genius
Many commenters here seem to conflate AAA games with new games. Sure, the AAA games have only been around for a little while, but there are new games made by indie developers that are absolutely exceptional. Rimworld, Xenonauts, Starbound, Terraria, Planet Coaster, Stardew Valley, Prison Architect, Cities Skylines, and many others come to mind. By the way, there have been industry-changing AAA games as well like the original Mass Effect trilogy and Witcher 3; they are some of the greatest games of all time. There are many shit AAA games too. But my point is a great game is a great game regardless of its budget or technology available at the time of release.
Witcher 3 greatest of all time with that terrible combat? lmao.
@@anab0licThe combat was not the main focus. It was a story driven rpg. The combat was also not bad, it was decent at least Imo.
Simcity, Star Control II, Gran Turismo, Civilization 2 and Morrowind are my top 5 in terms of time spent playing.
>replay old game
>it's still good
HMMM truly a mystery
Master Blaster is one of the most fun games ever made. In and out of the moon truck battle. Boss battles. Power ups and no save points. Brutal epic game
I feel that the long lasting appeal of arcade games over other older games like for ps1 for example, is again the amount of control that you have, which makes the challenge more attractive, addictive and more based on actual skill rather than on 'realistic' chance.
we played fewer games back then. then every game is more worth to us. now its too mutch. and too many small shitty games that was made by one person. i would not complain if 3 people made a zelda clone today that is actually as good as zelda is.
you're right dude. and so many games today are even given out for free. you just don't have the same commitment
Gaming has barely changed quality in my opinion. There existed trash back in the NES days, the 90's, the 00's and all over the place. The reason that we say this is because we remember the awesome, revolutionary titles. Nobody remembers the shallow cash grabs trying to make a quick buck off of the success of better games, people remember things like Castlevania, Metroid, A Link to the Past, Super Metroid, Ocarina of Time, Fallout 1, Deus Ex, Morrowind, Oblivion. We say that gaming is worse now when in reality, the quality has stayed mostly the same. The bad games are much more apparent now because we exist there with them and are easily accessible with hundreds of people talking about them.
Tell me that you appear to be akin to false equivalences without telling me that you appear to be akin to false equivalences.
I would have to say both personally.
I was born nine years after the video game crash of 83. In my time alive I have had at some point in time a Playstation, a Gameboy, a Nintendo 64, I had a Gameboy color, a PS2, an original Xbox, a Gamecube, a Gameboy advance, an Gameboy advance SP, a Nintendo Wii, an Xbox 360, a Nintendo DS lite, a Nintendo DSi XL, a Nintendo 3DS, a PS4, an Xbox One.
I have had the honor of playing many of the greatest games from the 90s to now. The 90s were the rebirth of gaming after the video game crash of 83.
When I say new being worse is both true and nostalgia I mean it more or less depends on the franchise.
Look at Pokemon for an example of the newer games being better than the gen one games.
For the reverse look at Battlefront by Pandemic and Battlefront by DICE and Criterion.
Look at Halo Combat Evolved vs Halo 5, is Halo 5 an enjoyable game to me? Yes it is, but is it better than Halo: Combat Evolved? No
I know what some might say: "But what about a modern game being better than its predecessor?"
Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is being hailed as one of the best if not the best Zelda games out there. Fire Emblem Awakening is considered to be one of the best if not the best Fire Emblem game.
For another two games that are somewhat old but is new in the general sense that the franchise has been around a long time:
Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy VII, the two best Final Fantasy games I have ever played. VII game out in 97 just ten years after the first game, and X came out in 01 just four years after VII. These two are considered to be two of the best entries in the franchise and not even the first game in the franchise is considered to be better than them. For a more modern Final Fantasy game look no farther than Final Fantasy XV. It too is considered to be one of the best of the franchise and was a breath of fresh air after the turds that were XIII and XIV.
For Strategy games in the 4X genre Civ V or Civ VI vs Civ I lol.
Of course games were better before. Before, there was not that much money into making games. That meant, that those who did put significant effort into games, only did it out of passion. The passion FELT!
Now, they just make games for money, fast, sloppy and forgettable. However, indie scene is quite big now. That proofs a lot.
"fast, sloppy and forgettable." And in your nostalgia, you've already forgotten many of the games that were exactly like that back in your day
And we don't have to install updates, buy dlc etc.. just put the cartridge in console and enjoy.
@@kaihedgie1747 But the good old ones are better then the good new ones is the point.....Graphics over an actual video game people love feeling like there in a movie looking through someone's eyes but in crappy 3d form which if thats what you like it will never give you satisfaction until it looks like actual real life and then thats a cool game....so backwards graphics are not games experience and game mechanics and storyline are....
@@bilyerkriscos9301 This is a joke post, right? 'Cause that's what I'm getting from your channel...or lack thereof
@@kaihedgie1747 no if you wanted your game to succeed in the 90s it had to be good and you couldnt get cheat off youtube or walkthroughs you had to actually beat the game these days they can advertise a bad game and still make money if you made a bad game in the 90s you were broke even if the cover looked awesome kids wouldnt buy it....oh no pleae dont tease my channel haha i cant afford to lose any more subscriptions
I'm late to the party and I didn't listen to the video, but I'll share this anyways : I think it's the feeling of discovery that really makes it all the difference. Video games have fondementally similar mechanics and it's discovering them as a kid, when you have a lot of free time, that really makes the difference. As adults, most 90s have explored all these mechanics and have less time so new games don't impress them anymore like they did before. For a kid of today, that's completely different and I'm sure in 10-15 years they will say the same things as we do
There is definitely a difference. Video games in the 90s targeted audience are geeks and nerds with a lot of free time, so they make mechanically complex and punishing games, but this is a pure Western and a very American thing. Outside of Western Europe and North America, the smart nerdy kids have more school works and have no time for complex games because they don't have all the free times Western kids do. Modern Corporate electronic entertainment must aim for the biggest market to be profitable, so they can't aim for nerdy niches with a couple of exceptions like people who made souls games and Escape From Tarkov/Hunt Showdown type of games. Most publishers needs to make graphically exciting mechanically simple game if they want real profit because grew productive adults and younger kids either have no time or lack of mental capacity to handle mechanically complex and punishing games that demand its players to "git gud" before enjoy. Older people with real life responsibilities don't look for challenges in video games because they had enough of that in real life unless 6-12 grade teens who aren't into sport and are bored out of their minds if not for video games
This might sounds terrible, but did you notice that most of the hardcore gamers in the West tend to be adults on welfare or part-time employed, or non-athletic and socially less connected teens with a lot free time to do whatever (the down time that was supposed to be occupied by sports and partying with popular and athletic teens). There is a reason for that, and so is why the Orient is moving away from dedicated console and PC gaming and into a more small section based, much more dumb down, but much more compact and mobile experiences because people over there never developed a culture that enabled a certain segment of the society to idle in free time (vast majority of the kids dedicate 90% their time and energy in schooling to prepare for the future and vast majority of the adults are overwhelmed by responsibility in white collar corporate environments and nuclear family homes so no one has time for "git gud" games).
The bottomline is, majority of the people don't have the amount time to dedicate in gaming that older games require to enjoy.
Picture it this way:
Old games are made by people who take their time writing a good script and steadying their animation process, therefore these games are great forever. New games are made by people who don't put much thought into their games to make it better than anything before it, they literally just wasted the chance to make a groundbreaking and innovative game or one that could last for generations.
How could we have let this happen to our precious franchise's?
I don't know.
Should we still play old games today?
Absolutely.
I thought pokemon was great because I had nothing to compare it to. If only I had spent some time in the woods collecting insects and other critters I could've saved a lot of money...
what's the title of the game at 1:09?
That would be Ultima Underworld. There's a show about it on this channel if you want to know more about it.
My two cents: Old games often just launched straight into gameplay - modern games put you through endless unskippable cinematics, videos and tutorials after an installation process that takes a darn long time itself ... and even after you've passed through the initial tutorial they still don't give you access to all gameplay features until near the end of a campaign...
"Old games often just launched straight into gameplay"
Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Ocarina of Time and plenty other high profile games hit you with long cutscenes long before you even got to control your character.
@@kaihedgie1747 Yeah, FFVII intro was hella long lol. But the best thing about it, you could just imagine the voices, or imitate their voices. This is perfect if you record or stream a gameplay of it, it never gets boring.
What is the background theme music
It's Sovereign by Kevin Macleod, it's a free song that you can find on his site: incompetech.com
@@GaminGHD thanks
I think the old ones are better because they worked our imagination better in a simpler and more immersive way, over the years the technological capacity increased and the games became more and more complex and, for me, boring! It is no longer that simple distraction for my brain, because with games I try to rest my mind, which is already tired with work and routine! Therefore, arriving home after a tiring journey, all I wanted was to get something to eat, turn on the video game and put on something simple that amuses me, and not time-consuming games to understand as if they were a philosophy book, and on themes and subjects that don't interest me and worst of all, these online services! When I go to play I want to disconnect, I don't want to go online...
Man the Arcade was the BOMB, before game console.
It does vary from game to game. But I think it's a combination of factors you mentioned in the video. One is a lot of people have fond memories of older games as they were their first. But also as you mentioned that back in the day studios felt like they really tried to inovate, so as a result there was more variety and people were more likely to find niche mechanics and such that they really liked. But many of which never got polished and became main stream.
So they some experiences which newer games just can't capture because they or more streamlined for a broader audience. Like you bashing on Skyrim for being watered down mess yet it's extremely popular and some say best ES yet. While you hold Morrowind up as the best and others walk the middle like saying Oblivion was the best having improved on Morrowind while not losing it's core like Skyrim did. So it feels like it comes down to a bit of personal preference but then again we also don't know how much it had to do with that being their first. After all Morrowind you said was your first and you hold it as top tier of ES games. So for those holding up Oblivion as best was it their first ES?
But overall I do think a lot of older games are better due to actual effort put in by developers instead of the cynical cash grab most studios treat games. Sure the GFX have improved and in some cases UI has improved only because they are copying well established UI in the same way the copy mechanics.
You had me until you started ranting against JRPGs. ...And I mean, to be fair, most JRPGs TODAY do indeed suck (although the recent double whammy of Persona 5 and Nier Automata has been nice). But back in the 90's and early 2000's? They were amazing, and spouting crap about how they're all about crystals, grinds, and boring combat is like me assuming all WRPGs are just about killing orcs and rats for random NPCs.
As for nostalgia, new vs. old, etc., I'll say this much... games back then were far less hand-holding. But they were also more intuitive and focused. These days we have so many massive open world games trying to be literally everything to everyone, and it all just ends up feeling like bloat with no substance. It's almost to the point where it's too much. I end up feeling less fulfilled by an 80 hour behemoth open world game than a five hour focused game like Silent Hill 2 or Super Metroid, let alone a game like FFVII or Bloodborne that's long AND feels substantial and well crafted the entire way through. Why play a game like Assassin's Creed number whatever where the stupid tutorial alone is longer than many entire games, and the rest is probably not half as rewarding once you're through it?
To be fair, jRPGs could do with innovating past the turn based combat. There were some pretty good games like Vagrant Story that surpassed the jRPG genre.
JRPG is not original, JRPG was born by western RPG came out first in western such as Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy, modeled after the western computer RPG's Wizardry and Ultima that's really popular back then. nowadays, we got many JRPG like Etrian Oddessy, Disgaea & etc etc..
That implies that there is something wrong with Turn Based Combat. Innovating past it is pointless because it's not something that needs to be innovated past. There are still Japanese action RPGs if you don't like JRPGs.
There's nothing wrong with turn based combat, but I like it when it has a lot of depth to it. Like Jagged Alliance 2 - that is turn based combat pretty much perfected imo. Jrpg combat looks so banal in comparison.
Depth of combat in different genres of games that only share the fact that their combat is turn-based is expressed in different ways and as such it's unfair to compare combat of Jagged Alliance, a turn-based tactics game from west with literally an entire genre or turn-based RPGs from Japan. JRPG turn-based combat can and often was deep enough in the way fitting of that genre.
If it's your personal opinion that the depth expressed in those games is banal, bland or something else, then you can hold that opinion, but it's important to differentiate between subjective likes and dislikes and gameplay that is objectively in need of being innovated beyond or improved.
Bomberman '94 on the NEC PC Engine (TurboGrafx-16) is my favorite old simple game. Whenever I want to feel nostalgic with something from my childhood that I craved for and did not have it, I play that. I did not have a Sega Genesis to play the Mega Bomberman version, nor a SNES to play the Superbomberman 3 and 4. However, there was a 100% true port of it on PC (DOS) that I played in 1997-1998 after Dyna Blaster and Atomic Bomberman.
I have never found that game again, so I can only use emulators. It's like it never existed. :( A Windows version surfaced in the Microsoft Store, but not the "original" DOS one.
Sure, I still like many classic games, since the '80 and early '90 that I played on my TIM-s computer (Sinclair Spectrum clone), or on friends' PCs, Ataris, Apple IIs, Amigas, etc, but this particular title is my gold standard for puzzle-ish arcade-is games.
So, there's an extra type of nostalgia, for games that I wanted, did not have at their time, only some 4 year later and were still very good.
PS: My favorite "complex" old game is Fallout 2.
I think the bad dues game is too old, but I feel like there was this golden age , at least for me, where I had age of empires 2, dungeon keeper, Quake 2, Hexen, FIFA 98, and even though there's nostalgia, they are still solid games that you could enjoy today
Captain Blood, Shadow of the beast, Xenon2, Millenium 2.2, Deuteros, Frontier, ... I was amazed then, watching those now makes me scratch my head. As long as platform goes, Turrican II was never surpassed. Metroid prime on gamecube was tons of fun. The better graphics and sound of current games come sometimes with lack of depth, side quests, secrets, lore, characters, charisma, and intelligence. There is a problem with current vastness or infinite universes in games : you can not "level design" a big place. Maybe IA can do it better than procedural, but I liked the manual level design. You get a sense of closure when you finish an old school game. It is strange, as much as I love Elite Dangerous from the bottom of the heart, i don't play it, I'm more into the small planets like in Osiris new dawn. I like being able to measure progress, complete something, move on, etc. KSP has it all, KSP is on par with old games ...
Old games - took inmeasurable effort
Modern games - easy for everyone and the developers' goal is only the money
I only like modern games cuz of graphics and some mechanics. I like old games too, but not too old like 80s or 90s. Somewhere in 2000s.
2000s were no doubt the golden age of video games, it was far back enough to when the developers cared but new enough for the games to have enough technology to be good.
@@mr.jamster8414 yeah
It's both. There are lot of old games that are better than modern games, but soulless cash grabs were just as prevalent back in the day and there are plenty of modern games that have passion and love put into them.
Which ones???
Older games were better. I'm almost 30 and 90's games growing up as a kid were the shit.
Late 90s/early 2000's were the best years for multiplayer games imo
@Marek Tužák There was just a ton of innovation during those years. The market wasn't ruled by the huge studios like it is today. You had small studios producing AAA games and taking risks to be different from the pack. It's this kind of attitude that led to games like Tribes 1&2 , Savage, Half-life 1&2, Planetside, Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot: the list goes on an on. There's never been a time where I found gaming more engaging then in those years.
And no, It wasn't because I was new to gaming. I had been a gamer since 1989.
@Marek Tužák It's just my opinion, dude. I never asked you to agree with me rofl
@Marek Tužák Opinions can't be wrong, idiot. Fuck off to whatever hole you crawled out of.
- 1. Anachronox
- 2. Homeworld
- 3. Lords of Midnight (Spectrum)
- 4. Omikron: The Nomad Soul
- 5. Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl
- 6. Elite (Spectrum)
- 7. Half Life 2
- 8. The Longest Journey
- 9. Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher's Bay
- 10. Independence War 2: Edge of Chaos
Some old games were good.
Some new games are horrible.
On average games improved so much, even games I used to love feel pretty shitty...
Skyrim is a masterpiece
I would say the most important thing to look for in video games is immersion mainly because no matter how hard you try video games will never beat pen and paper when It comes to rpg mechanics or strategy and they will never beat books at story and never beat film at visuals but no other medium has the same potential for immersion as video games but sadly modern games don’t much care for immersion
You forgot gameplay and interaction
I think its safe to say The old days were better in most ways except political conflicts and paramedics
We have both gained and lost a lot
We've yet to get anything even close to as technically impressive as Underworld and System Shock 1. Even Crysis is shallow in comparison to these two. Thief 1 & 2 infinitely outclass any attempts at parkour or exploration or stealth. Those games did everything amazing nowadays a game gets credited for one or two things being neat while the rest is just "meh."
I know its old vid. But I think you missed a very important key point about old games. Look at steams top 10 right now. PUBG is dribbling about at the top game is terribly made, with no colour and has diabolical interface and I can't fathom why its even a thing, yet super popular. But look down at the rest.
#2 Dota 2. Clone of a 20 year old mod. - improved visuals / UI
#3 Counter Strike GO. Clone of a 20 year old mod. - improved visuals / UI
#4 Rainbow siege. Clone of CS designed to appeal to the cod demographic.
#5 Warframe. Game is almost 5 years old.
#6 Payday 2. Game is almost 5 years old.
#7 GTA 5. improved graphics game that plays just like GTA 3 did 15 years ago. - improved visuals / UI
#8 TF2 12 years old. Overwatch is the "new TF2" yet it's still pulling 35k people.
#9 Football manager. Football hasn't changed since the 1930s really.
#10 ARK? Games quirky, with a bad interface and a buggy mess and no direction. Just like a lot of old games like Dudes and ninjas and daggerfall that you pointed out. Hardly fantastic.
Granted a lot of these are multiplayer. But GTA 5 and FM definitely fill the single player criteria.
Are old games better? No. Are old games "better?" Yes, clearly old mechanics and letting people think for themselves is a huge positive for games. "Press F to open door" Press F to climb" "Press F to beat the boss" is just shoddy game design. Let people actually fight the boss like we did time and again with Dr. Robotik and Bowser.
Rainbow siege was actually a remake-ish of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Siege for ps1, no?
Indeed they are, coming back to my childhood games (gothic, fallout, elder scrolls) they graphically hold up really well and gameplay wise they offer so much replayability that most modern games do not offer as they are a cash grab.
I agree, it's sad though
There was a time when i wasn't sure if my preference for many old games was nostalgia or not. Then UA-cam came along and with it many let's plays.....and then....and then i saw people playing games i never played myself back then, either because i was too young, or i didn't have access to them. Some of the Ultima series fall into this category. So i asked myself.....how can i be nostalgic about games i never played? Could it be that they were much more engaging? More immersive? More creative? More.... "fun"? Not that there aren't any such games today, but there were back in the day. And many of the those games back then....well, as you said, they seam to have tried harder. The sorry state of the things is that none of those awesome ideas people had back then are really worked on or revived today. Ok.....maybe some are.....but way too few.
The other gripe I have with new games is that the amount of control I have over what happens is reduced by all this new realism. I can appreciate a game mirroring aspects of real life but not at the expense of the game play, I want to be able to escape real life and get a dopamine release and not be killed all the time because 'it's realistic'. Realistic aspects also don't work when other aspects aren't realistic, for example, I prefer Red Faction on PS2 to Call Of Duty 4 because I have full control over the cross hair and can fine tune the sensitivity, and when I take my hand off the analogue stick the screen immediately stops where I left it and this appears to make up for the fact that I'm not actually inside the game and shooting a gun but using a remote control, whereas COD 4 has a bunch of 'realistic' moving about, which makes me feel less in control and removed from the game play and I just don't enjoy it for nearly as long.
Old games are just different. It's hard to pin point with absolute what is objectively better. We just look at modern graphics, cinematics, art and music, more gimmicks in gameplay, full open worlds, and we are like "How can this be not better than some old janky crap back in time, where they couldn't even have the technology to cram so much content"
But it's not about better or not. Who care if something is objectively better if you don't enjoy it. There are tropes in modern games that really destroy my experience, but these tropes exist because 1) technology allows it, 2) mainstream gaming culture (or modern game design rules) says it's good for the player. So every game has it.
It also depends in the individual. Which elements make a game a great experience for you. I realize the majority of the players expect the cinematic story experience and everyone rants about how important stories are for video games. But it wasn't like this always, or at least not in the way stories are told in video games. One reason was again technology. They couldn't make a PS3 like cinematic experience in the 90s where the main player view is stolen from the player to change cameras to some interactive view where you have to press some button for the QTE, but you are not really the one moving, just scripted. Or every game must have tons of real actors speech and actors, while restricting the player choice and movement with linear paths.
And there are more elements. One element in modern game is to always have an assistant/walkie talkie/someone to talk you through the mission. I have enjoyed more old games even obscure janky one because that wasn't there, they wouldn't be able to fit the speech in 90s computers (Janky games like Realms of Haunting, Jurassic Park Trespasser or also the King's Field I recently played on PS1/2). I was really immersed as I was left alone at some abandoned place with no assistant, almost no humans or at all, very limited story elements only as you progressed, not on every steps and definitelly not shoe-horned with in between gameplay cinematics. If there are such show stoppers there are few. I am recently immersed in early Dark Souls games (I like the old ones more than the later FromSoft stuff), as most of the time you are left at peace, you can ask characters for cryptic answers or discover things yourself, nothing is forced. There are rare cinematics but only at key moments where you triggered something. There is the same sense of dread and loneliness.
And there are more elements but better I stop. There are little tropes and things that are done differently in modern games because it's anti-design to do things the old way, which I will admit sometimes they weren't done by choice but because of limited technology or oversight as there were no QAs but four dudes in their underwear with passion for those immersive early 3D worlds. I guess there might be a similar story for 2D games, but I just miss the early simplistic and immersive 3D games of the 90s-2000s. Modern games have all the extra gimmicky tropes that spoil it for me.
Far cry 2, 3, 4 was amazing but later is garbage. There is lack of funding nowadays and more greed.
I just finished Morrowind and I'm playing KotOR at the moment.
Movie Nerd KOTOR is a game that I would kill someone to be remade, yet it’s a masterpiece I want left untouched
1.5 speed make this video perfect.
It is important to distinguish between facts & opinions first. A good Story is mostly a debatable opinion. Yet, it can factually be a bad story. Mostly, when retconning and other crap, turns the story like a twister into a huge clump of a mess.
Stuff you can measure are facts. That can be graphics, performance & stability (crash free). Also working gameplay elements.
Objectively can you compare gameplay elements. Many games in the past, did gameplay elements better than modern games do.
And when modern games start to stack up, bad, broken, just non-working elements one upon another. People become angry. Especially when these people played games where all these elements worked. Even if its in 5 different games separately.
We have end 2017 and User Interfaces & Combat Systems have gone worse! They are upside down backwards broken now!
This also includes Mods that fixed all that shit, years before. And then comes a Skyrim or Fallout 4 around the corner and takes a huge dump on some "non professional developers" fixed and improved content. By simply don't giving a single shit.
(Did anyone play the Mod Enderal? How come that Skyrim is human waste in comparison? Lore and quality wise?)
And then, some assheads really believe, people won't get pissed and won't rant? Skyrims UI was awful. Fallout 4s UI is beyond abysmal, especially the PC controls. For both PIP Boy & Settlement Controls. A dead shot rat can do better!
Why does the PiP Boy even exist as this arm wrist interface bullshit? This is a major hardcoded man made design problem!
Then, We have game balance, part of game design. That is also something you can measure, or look at it objectively.
For this, you can take, basically every single game from the past 10 years. And easily say, game balance is dead.
But Bethesda with Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 4 and CDP-Red with Witcher 3 are one of the most pathetically balanced games you can find on the market.
These antiquated pseudo MMO RPG systems need to die out, ASAP! It makes no sense what so ever to use such a braindead system in Witcher 3 for example. It simply clashes with the World Lore and the suspension of disbelief.
When a full trained Witcher, with all his wisdom and magic power and mutagens. Can die, when a drunk bum smashes a chair on the Witchers head.
Yet, he wipes the ass of a Dragon fully naked, just because he's 60 levels higher. Or the other way around, that Dragon can not even scratch the naked Witcher, while standing in the middle of his fire breath. Because he is 60 level higher, the witcher.
No, that is just No to making sense, No to the World Lore, not to the disbelief, No to anything remotely considerable to be ok!
Not only does this bring in, a massive amount of balancing issues. As CDPR tried to fix over and over again, numerous times.
It could be fixed so easily, with a simple Logic table/Truth table, its mind boggling.
All the Lore, disbelief and balancing issues can be solved with such a table. Very easily. Even later for fine balancing.
It even works with RNG balancing. The entire difficulty setting, can be build upon such a table. Without a hassle.
Combine it with Armor Threshold, something barely anyone ever heard about. And your world becomes more believable.
While improving or at least shifting the combat system into a better direction.
CDPR asked people for balancing feedback for head shots, for their new Cyberpunk 2077 game. Already shoving, that they don't know crap about how to balance a game! I already wrote down, how its done right here. Armor Threshold, Truth/Logic Table!
Do modern developers use it? No, they don't. They rather waste hours of hours of man power and money, to create just another Pseudo MMO RPG system. Where they tinker around for weeks and months to come. And still mess up the game balance.
Just to repatch everything multi times. Look at CDPR with Witcher 3, they did exactly that many times! Look at the patch notes!
And it does not look better for Bethetic games. Fallout 4 makes it even worse, by directly influencing the Weapon Damage up to 200+% by the skill tree/system itself! Its just horrible design straight from hell!
Almost every skill, contributes to some kind of damage. Debalancing the entire, already broken game, even further beyond!
How stupid and unaware have modern developers truly become?
btw. you can upgrade the Minigun & Combat Shotgun to the point where they won't do damage to anything further away than an childs arm length. Its pathetic!
Many stuff, doesn't even *make sense* anymore in video games. Or is outright badly implemented.
People compare Elex to Gothic 2. When Gothic 2 is gold, and Elex is a turd. The combat system in Gothic 2 worked. In Elex its broken.
A failed by design combination of terrible UI, where your staminabar is at the upper left corner, very small. And in the lower left corner, is your combo meter. And in the middle of the screen is the action.
Because people have 3 eyes, able to look at 3 totally different directions. Just plain stupid by design.
And the Stamina does not help. Its not an improvement to an already broken and wonky hitbox system. Its plain bad, because it stops the game/combat flow.
The entire game balancing is again, broken. Not only by yet another pseudo RPG system. No, many skills don't work as intended. And skill points are only needed for the player to equip weapons.
(While the progression through items is ideal. In Elex it takes you up to lvl 10-20 ~10 to 15 hours and more. Just to equip better weapons)
Parrying like in Gothic does not work anymore, you either roll away. Thanks to Dark Souls for dumbing down an entire industry to the lowest possible nominator. Or you walk away. Wait for stamina, attack. Walk away again, wait for stamina, repeat...
What many people seem to forget, in Elex. You are the biggest mofo the world has ever seen. You are the boss. The Beast of beastmen. Yet, after 3 days of not taking your drugs. You have degraded to the king of worms, the king wimps.
You can't even swing a rusty axe anymore. Let alone, holding one of your guns.
You're the OverWarlord. After 3 days of sleep, you're the one eaten by rats. It makes no sense what so ever. Neither from a design, balancing nor lore and especially from a makings sense/disbelief standpoint.
Game design wise, ideas like the Jetpack are good. But the implementation is below abysmal.
And the poor animations truly ruin the rest of the broken game.
Remember the Candle Problem in the Witcher 3? In Elex, its the companions and the chairs. Plain stupid. QC testing? Nope.
Again, if you saw better in the past 20 years. You should expect more than something poor as this game in end 2017.
And Severance - Blade of Darkness, a 16 year old game from 2001, still beats the living crap out of all the mentioned games above, in the combat department!
So yes, games were better in the past, at least when it comes to combat! Thats 98% of the core gameplay element.
Let that sink in for a moment. What do you do in the mentioned games? You fight! What does not work? The fighting!
Look, Im the first to admit, how much flaws BoD had. It was a short and linear game. It has its fair share of bugs and glitches.
But compared to modern games, these glitches are a minor nuisance. Simply because the gameplay is so good in BoD.
I don't care if my character stumbles down the stairs, instead of walking. I don't care if i fall to my death, because the jump decided to stop in mid air. I reload in mere seconds. And proceed without further thoughts to my next opponent, so i can slash it into tiny pieces. With awesome moves and weapons. And that works.
When i die in combat, its my fault. And not a cheap shot from a faulty developer and bad game design he believes to be good.
I could continue with Zelda BotW and rip it a new anus hole, it really deserves one. Even more so the people who praise this game to the heavens!
I also talked in greater detail about the Witcher 3 faults on other videos. So i kept it short here.
And comparing Morrowind to its modern dumbed down Skyrim iteration would blow this already long comment out of orbit.
Did i have fun playing Skyrim. Yes i had, for the time being. Is it a good game? Hell NO! The moment i startet playing the game in a legit way, following the quests and such. Speaking with people, and not exploring the world while stealing and killing everything that moves. The game literally died, in front of my eyes. There is simply nothing that works right, or is worthwhile.
Many older games, good old games, retro games. No matter how people wanna call them. Are higher quality productions, than modern games.
Im not looking back at these games, while wearing pink goggles. I still play them! Aside from Divinity Original Sin 2. Not a single modern game is worth the asking price. In every single gameplay & design department, they lack effort, coherency and quality!
*Modern Video Games do more wrong than right* | *Old Video Games do more right than wrong*
The dumbing down of the industry is a real problem. Not a feeling or fiction.
You played Vampire the Masquarede - Bloodlines?
I loved all the games you mentioned btw.. the good and bad ones...
Fantastic rant man. I'm interested to hearing what you have to say about the Witcher 3, as I feel that game is vastly overrated and is setting a very bad example for RPGs. Or perhaps you can link to the videos in which you discuss it in the comments section?
Gunter Hermann What's the problem with Dark Souls and BoTW? Other than your blind nostalgia?
@Dragon Slayer Smough
I can't speak about BotW, but about Dark Souls: I really like it (the first one, also played the 3rd one, which isn't as great IMO). I love it because it's unforgiving (and pretty fair) and it really let's you explore, learn, figure things out. When I heard about it, I did rush to get it and kept myself for being spoiled. And defeating the first black knight was so rewarding. Or the feel I had when I finally found a pretty-early branch & areas & bosses when I was like level 30 and more than half of the game finished. I loved that the game actually made it so I can skip it by not paying attention and only later realize. And other things. It's a game which delivers great satisfaction for you finding/figuring out things. And it has quite some a bunch of things to be discovered.
Getting back to your question, you have to agree that the combat mostly boils down to attack, dodge-roll, with some movement involved in order to both evade some more and to recover stamina. And especially against bosses, it's quite repetitive, having to poke at their feet/asses, roll, and move around them non-stop. The roll mentioned by Gunder Hermann is too OP and worse - is in many cases the only option. All in all I really like the game (can't wait for the remaster, so I can finally play it normally on my Win 10), but it can still grow in the coherence & diveresity department.
Well I thought it was pretty good. Role playing as Geralt was fun, only this weird Highlight mechanic when investigation stuff felt really artifical. But story and world building was incredible, everything felt like a remotly real place.
So why do you think for RPGs the Witcher is bad?
Again I think its probably one of the best (western action)RPGs since the first Gothic.
For reference, I played the following RPG´s: Gothic 1-3, Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout NV, Pokemon blue - saphire, Dark souls 1-2 , Sacred (good diablo clone), Fallout 4, Darkest Dungeon, Grim Dawn and Witcher 3. Maybe forgot one or two.
I was born in 94, Its not nostalgia, the sheer creativity of the developers of the 80s is simply superior, they were nerds, they were pioneers, they were figuring crap out as they went, they experimented all the time, making games was fun and not a business that billed higher than hollywood movies and people were not in financial global crisis so they were happy to support this risky new era.
2020 games are too safe, too samey, too "for everyone", I have more faith in indie developers than big names like nintendo, because big developers are too big for their own good, they are complacent to investors, they no longer make games for fun, wether you agree or not is up to you, but I will continue enjoying old games more.
Master of Orion 2. Still best 4x
Old games are better like older movies
It might not have been technically better than now, but the passion the companies had is nonexistent
The truth no one will flat out admit, is that we are all wasting our time fumbling around with *_actual toys._* I don't care if your SNES cart, PS5, or Steam purchase costed you a liver. We're all manchildren & womanchildren playing with fucking toys, and there's nothing you can do to argue against this fact.
If the criteria was only graphics, then a game like Ultima Underworld would be seriously outdated. But in all other respects, Ultima Underworld, surpasses all present-day games
Back then micro transactions didn’t exist meaning people had to actually make good games
Weskal5490', comment is correct! The older games had more interactive gameplay and focused design. The stories were good, colors better even if graphics were not super realistic. But the gameplay was fun and kept me busy while the rewards were better. To be fair, it depends on what you are looking for and what expert " you need".
I truly miss halo 2 on Xbox live when there were hundreds of modded matches. It was amazing.
A little of both. Older games were better from the perspective that they would keep you entertained for hours, weeks, or even months and there were lots of stuff to still unlock within the game itself and you didn't need to play with other people online to have fun, (i.e Playstation 2 games and Super Nintendo). Whereas Newer games, (i.e, Playstation 4 and Xbox one), it's all about online playing with other people (some who are hackers), always badmouthing each other (whether for fun or seriously), buying DLC of unlockables from games that this stuff should already be in, developers and gamers worry too much about how the game looks more than anything (which is understandable) and they get updates to fix any video game bugs these days. While I should be with the rest of world as far as gaming, I still stick to my Playstation 2 and Original Xbox because to me they had much more fun games than what they're churning out now. Yes, visual-wise they're a massive step down from Xbox one and Playstation 4, but I'll take games being fun over graphics.
I guess it's a matter of perspective, I'm similar to your age and I think older games are better because back then people would get more excited about games much more than today. And there is something ti be said about the PS1 and PS2 eras. So many fun games. Shadow of the Collosus, Kingdom hearts 1 and 2 , Okami and so many others have stood the test of time.
Ii think the greatness of those older days and the RPGs, was the great stories mixed with the simple to play action. The graphics back then sometimes were lacking, but you could have fun. For me, having an open world to explore is key. Then good graphics BUT I NEED colorful graphics, which is why I enjoy Stardew Valley better than Skyrim on some days. On other days, I need Skyrim. When a complex rpg with depth and good skill level accomplishments, I play Morrowind. When I want something simple where I crave the desire to BUILD my world, then I play Travellers Rest ir Minecraft!
Old games are better always will be modern times are so fake all the once great talent from the old days is gone retired or moved on and wont ever come back today's game making is catching lightning in a bottle yes there are people who will say its nostalgia and stop living in the past but they didnt grow up to appreciate these titles period
I did grow up appreciating those titles, and I still think this comment is silly
Great video. May I ask what is your native language?
Romanian
It's not nostalgia at all. Old games were just better.
Hamza Khaliq I agree. I’m 14, I never owned a ps2 or GameCube, and I have to say that older video games on those consoles are a lot better. It’s like Nowadays, game developers have the cpu speed and budget and skill to make good games, but it’s like they don’t know how My favourite games are 80s arcade games (like the ones they have at car dealerships) and open world games from 2004 - 2012 (Spider-Man 2, simpsons hit and run, old minecraft) games mostly just piss me off now. The new minecraft updates are terrible, 1.16 felt like a shitty mod, where they used to add all sorts of cool stuff to the game. And a lot of games are just letting users fill in the holes with mods, or ripping people off by putting half the game behind a 200$ paywall. I feel like if people made games the way they USED to, but with TODAY’s technology, they would be so fun! But that’s not the case. Some of my old games are super Mario wii, Spider-Man 2, gta San Andreas (maybe I should get 5, it could be good), Simpson’s hit and run, and beta 1.7.3 minecraft. Most of the games (about 80%) I have emulated are good, for new games I can only think of the 80$ nintendo games I won’t pay for.
@@mr.jamster8414 I think most gamers nowadays care more about graphics and CGI than the actual gameplay which sucks. The gameplay should be the most important thing in a video game. I'd rather play a good game with bad graphics than a bad game with good graphics.
@@H.K.5 I agree with you on this statement, if a game plays good, then it's good. But the "old games were just better" is very much moot. Tony Hawk 1+2 is a good example of having the right people to do such a great freaking job bringing back something classic and make it better as or than before. If you don't believe in such a thing, then I do not know what I can tell you.
@@MrMonsterKen I was talking about most video game creators and gamers, not all of them. I do believe that the right people could bring back something classic and make it better than ever but most game creators won't do that nowadays.
@@H.K.5 The right people are also "Game Creators" there is not denying that.
i dont even need to hear abt this question, im literally a kid which wasnt even born when the games i like were released, so basically, its not nostalgia, they were better
Part nostalgia part truth... definitely games used to be more consistent before ps4 came out... everything is focused on graphics and cutscenes nowdays
I still think old games were better but it also depends what you compare them to. I see people compare modern games to old games all the time but the problem is the way they go about doing it.
They basically take whatever they play and compare it to the best games of the 80's,90's and 00's rather than compare games on a similar level. I guess that would be different for everyone though as everyone has different tastes so you got to put that into consideration.
You also had less people playing back then, smaller teams and not as much restraint in some areas. I still go back and play some of my games I grew up with in the 80's onward to the 00's. Some of those games are still unique to this day or has that certain artistic charm that pulls me back. I also find some of them better handcrafted, had gameplay or mechanics I enjoyed and they had to make sure it was going to be good.
Granted I was dying for some first person dungeon crawling for the longest time then Grimrock 1&2 came out and those were great but it won't prevent me from going back to play Stonekeep, DM or M&M 3 for example. My problem with most games now is that they are becoming too simple let alone easy and I'm not talking about QOL improvements.
Every now and then a game comes out to quench my thirst but I eventually still find my way backwards to my older library till the next thing comes out to satisfy me then it repeats. Games were just more unique back then where everything anymore is just a copy paste but better looking and maybe a mechanic or two different (For better or worse) but I also understand theres only so many ways to make a game different after a genre's been beat to the death for half a century.
I have been blinded my nostalgia though recently. Decided to go play SimCopter after not touching it for 20 years and boy I got burnt out so quick...it's fun in short bursts but that's about it. Cutthroats Terror On the High Seas though, still excellent despite the possible chance for a game breaking bug to happen or dumb AI. Wish someone would make another game like that, Sea Dogs is fun but I like strategy sims.
Certain older games are better than new games but not all of them are. Most of them are better because of the story, content, and mechanics. Some of these old games might have poor graphics, controls, or glitches but thank god for emulation and romhacks/iso patches which can fix some of these issues for the games that don't get a remake or remaster.
Im 15 and i def think old games were better
Prince of Persia the trilogy was a masterpiece for me =) first game on my pc