We have all heard it, and some of us have said it ourselves. "They don't make 'em like that anymore", "Old is gold", or any such variant. We know that across human culture we have a strong tendency to overrate things from our past, while conveniently forgetting the flaws. It makes sense, very unscientifically - it's what keeps us going. This is going to be more of a rambly essay, unlike my more edited reviews, but I'm sure this is something many of you have thought about at some point.
Games add a bit of a novel twist to this idea. Unlike most things, events, and thoughts, games undeniably improve dramatically on a technological level with time. Games are very much tied to Moore's law and the exponential improvement in processing power over time. More powerful hardware allows game developers to build environments and gameplay scenarios which are simply not possible on older hardware. This exponential increase in processing power has brought an equally exponential increase in game complexity over time.
Yet, there are people who'll swear by older games like Half-Life or Donkey Kong being the best games ever made. So, what gives? Are these people truly wearing some intense rose-tinted glasses? Or are older games really better?
The answer, as expected, is a bunch of factors. It's undeniable that expectations from a fast moving medium like gaming definitely accelerates over time. Those who played Half-Life or Ocarina of Time in the late 90s had totally different expectations for what's possibly with the interactive medium, compared to what we expect from Red Dead Redemption 2 in 2018. Our feelings and thoughts as we played them were absolutely real, we really were blown away by those games. Nostalgia plays its part too - as mentioned before, who doesn't like reminiscing about the good old times?
Another important aspect is that some people are resistant to change. They have grown strong preferences for certain things, while the rapidly moving gaming medium has simply moved on. This is neither a good or bad thing, and is indeed very subjective. But it's understandable why certain old school gamers are unimpressed by modern games. The same is true for modern gamers, of course, who find older games far too primitive and clunky.
Modern games have far better graphics, animation, physics, sound and much, much more - games are undoubtedly far more immersive than ever. At the same time, games are also far more polished, and generally much more user friendly. "Beating" a game today is no longer an achievement, but rather the expectation, just like with a movie, TV series or a book. A game having game-breaking bugs is unthinkable in today's day and age. So, from every technical perspective, games are indeed much better today, and they'll continue to improve.
However, some things do not really age, chiefly writing, music and fundamental game design. It's true that better technology allows for more complex stories and game design. And indeed, till the 90s music was pretty much just MIDI. But after a certain point, for many mainstream genres, the fundamentals do not really age. We remember the overall experience, the immersion, the storytelling, the characters, the battles - these things do not really age. So, there's definitely something to be said of certain aspects of games being timeless. There are certain genres, certain types of games, that benefit from minimalism or a strong focus - and it can be argued that modern iterations of these games can sometimes be overtly complex. These types games certainly don't age.
Overall, though, I firmly believe that games have improved significantly over time, and I expect this to be true for the foreseeable future. Modern games offer experiences that were simply not possible before, and continue to awe us in ways we don't expect. At the same time, there were some tremendous ideas in older games that should not be dismissed. Indeed, they can inspire modern games to fully realize visions that were not quite possible back in the day. Lastly, there'll always be a group of people who genuinely prefer the older games, and for them, there's been a quiet revival in retro style games in the last couple of years. So, modern gaming has something for everyone, and I remain very optimistic for the future of the medium! Especially with the next-gen consoles finally offering exponential boosts to CPU and SSD performance, we should see entirely new types of worlds and gameplay scenarios and mechanics.
I started playing games on an Atari 2600 but my favorite platform was probably my Commodore 64 and later my DOS based PC. I loved my NES, Super NES, TurboGrafx-16, Gamecube and Dreamcast as well. After that, I started losing interest in modern games. I think it is because most of my favorite gaming genres have died (well, they live on in the Indie world but not in AAA titles).
Where are the turn-based RPGs and strategy games (Ultima, D&D Gold Box series, Baldur's Gate)? How about the spaceflight exploration/combat games (I still want a remake or sequel to the X-Wing series of games)? How about the quirky unique titles like Worms and Lemmings? I love games from a pretty wide time period playing contemporary games from about 1983 until 200X. After that, it really started to taper off for me. Almost everything looks and feels like an FPS these days which was never my favorite genre (though I had a blast with he original Doom and later Timesplitters). I'll be honest, I've kind of stopped paying attention over the last decade or so, so maybe it has gotten better.
It's was just hard to get excited when it seemed like every major game is an FPS with more or less RPG elements. As far as modern games, I still play the latest Mario Kart and some Pokemon Go. There might be some modern driving games I would like but even those don't seem as common anymore.
I think certain genres have improved over time but I think others have just been left behind almost completely. And as has already been mentioned, i have almost 0 interest in a game as a service. I did play a couple of MMORPGs when they first became popular (it was Dark Age of Camelot and Star Wars Galaxies for me). I enjoyed them both but since I have limited time to play and may play a lot one month and none the next so a subscription based game is not ideal. Plus they both went away in pretty short order leaving me to feel that time invested is just wasted.
Having said all that, there is a wealth of independent games out there these days that cover pretty much any genre I mentioned. It's really just the mainstream AAA titles that have completely lost my interest.
I'd love to see a post from you about your history with platforms in detail!
Exactly. The industry has matured. Like with movies, books, TV series, and pretty much all media, capitalism means that the mainstream stuff is rarely the best. It's the independent arena where you find quality, and the independent game industry is thriving. I agree that most mainstream AAA titles are pretty formulaic, but then again, you have a fair few high quality AAA titles as well.
I've actually lost interest in more modern games, I think it's mostly the focus on graphics, animations, and strong narratives. If I do play something these days, I find myself picking up older games that actually are quite restricting based on the technology they're built for.
I've had more fun playing Resident Evil 3 (PS1) than I have anything more modern. There's something about the gameplay that feels more immersive and rewarding. Perhaps it's a result of the camera angles and weird janky tank controls. The way it feels slower to perform movements and actions I think makes it more immersive as opposed to analogue sticks being pushed around.
One thing I do know I'm not a big fan of these days is the games-as-a-service notion. I have zero interest in live services when they're designed to keep you in and paying. I even have noticed some ignorance towards really cinematic games with very linear level design and heavy animations towards performing actions.
As @holoz0r said: writing hasn't kept up. Stories these days are a bit too centred around realism and giving players something to relate to, rather than going wild with fictional worlds and characters.
A complete notion I forgot to mention in my remarks! This is so true, and I was just talking about this with friends on discord.
Games as an attention economy is good, when the game is good, and progression isn't tied to that attention - the original Diablo game, for instance, captivated and held people's attention without any real gimmicks like we see today, where people are rewarded daily with loot boxes, consecutive play bonuses, etc.
The reward should be the game and the pleasure derived from it. Funnily enough, the recent game I've enjoyed for the gameplay for this exact reason is Path of Exile - yes there's a story there, but the gameplay mechanics and challenge of reconciling all the nuance within it is the reward itself.
I'm right with you on the games-as-a-service thing, and the overtly cinematic "movie game". However, there's a great amount of diversity in modern gaming. Particularly, the independent gaming scene is thriving, and some of the storytelling is breaking new ground not just for games, but for fiction (books, movies, comics) in general. I'd highly recommend Return of the Obra Dinn or Outer Wilds, for example.
Great points.
I'd like to add that, those older games are often made by a small, ragtag group of developers or even a single person. Those games are truly made with intense passion and a singular creative vision, which in alot of times it shows in the final product.
For me, that adds to the charm and the fascination for these old games.
Nowadays those AAA game developer are backed by multibillion dollar publishers (coughEAcough) who are constantly looking over their shoulders, often stifling creativity and fostering a risk-averse environment where developers are afraid to experiment with new things. At worst, they churn out more of the same if not increasingly inferior products. There are just too many examples to list.
But once in a while, you'll find a gem made by small-time devs with the same intrepid spirit of the olden times, such as the Amnesia series and Shovel Knight, to name a few.
That's a good point, though I'll say that there are a fair few massive projects which are also willing to take major risks. Speaking of EA, you can really feel the passion in Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order. Or God of War, or Red Dead Redemption 2. But yes, there are a large number of AAA blockbusters which seem to have gone the way of the Hollywood blockbuster.
The independent gaming is thriving like never before, though. Games like Return of the Obra Dinn, Outer Wilds, Subnautica are pushing the boundaries of not just what games can do, but fiction in general.
Games improve - what hasn't improved in a material way is the writing.
Some of this has gone backwards. To me, gaming is a story-telling medium, and the best stories are those that I've read again and again, like a good book. I'd say the most recent game that falls into the 'classic' bucket is BioShock: Infinite.
Having said that, there's been a few recent masterpieces, like Uncharted 4 which had it all - story, pacing, gameplay.
Then there's other titles that just have the gameplay nailed, and fall slightly flat in other areas, like Cities: Skylines, Fire Emblem: Three Houses, XCOM2, to name a few.
I like story the most, but solid gameplay is also important. A balance of the two is the dream.
A game also needs to have that page turning mechanic that so many books have "just one more chapter".
TLDR: Story, Story, Story.
Well said! The great thing about games is that there can be all types of players. Obviously, for you story is king, but there are others who keep skipping cutscenes and just want the gameplay! As I mentioned, story is something that is timeless, and it's not something that'll get better with new technology. Sure, new tech does allow for more complex forms of storytelling.