Video games have never been as good as they are now. But at the same time, video games have also never been as uninteresting as they are now.
I can just imagine growing up in the 90s, playing 2D games and all of a sudden, games are now in 3D. Video games were still a new medium and constantly evolving. Developers took risks, crafted new experiences and were quite frankly more creative. Today, most games are just copies of what came before. People will happily make fun of companies like Ubisoft for creating the same type of games across its franchises. But take any game that has just come out and ask yourself: is this game any different from what came before it? The answer, for the most part, is: it really isn't. Whenever a new IP is announced, what is one of the first things people say about it? Something like this: "This looks like Assassin's Creed meets Devil May Cry meets The Legend of Zelda". It's either similar to something that came before it or a combination of numerous series.
So that got me wondering, is this it? Is this everything that video games have to offer? Will there never be any more revolutionary changes similar to going from 2D to 3D? Well, I believe there will be and we've already seen a glimpse of that last generation with Death Stranding. I'm talking about cloud-based video games, i.e. titles where the worlds are constantly changing even when you're not playing them. If I think back to the PS4 generation and go through all PS4 titles I've experienced, I won't find a more innovative game than Death Stranding. I still couldn't believe it when I played it. A road that I was building had suddenly been expanded over night with the support of other players. That to me was the most impressive thing I've ever experienced from that generation.
The full technology simply isn't there yet. But it will be in the future. Imagine playing a game where actions can actually permanently change the landscapes around us. That goes beyond our perceptions of what video games should be like. When we play a game, we expect the world to remain the same throughout our playthrough. But what if a natural disaster occurs that destroys parts of the world, or what if we gather enough resources to make a new building, all of which happen when we're not playing the game. I truly believe this is the next step for video games and this will definitely make for much more interesting experiences due to the higher level of unpredictability. Each time you play the game, you'll experience it differently. Not one playthrough will be the same (and not in the procedurally-generated kind of way). This prospect makes me very excited for the future of video games, even though it isn't looking that compelling for games right now in my opinion.
Once a medium has matured, you don't really get those seismic shifts anymore, just gradual changes in design trends over time. Some types of products will become more popular and see more variety within certain subgenres. You'll also occasionally see innovative techniques crop up. But the form and fundamentals of the medium are largely settled.
the future looks real dim if that’s all there is to look forward to is improved dynamic weather, even though I always wanted games to have some tornadoes in them since they fascinate the hell out of me but, is that really it?
This always happens until it doesn’t. Media will always be forwarded in ways that are unexpected. When has the mainstream ever made meaningful steps that created seismic shifts? Whether that’s jazz coming out of nowhere and then rock and roll sweeping the world too, they always start on the outside and work their way into the mainstream. This is absolutely why new creators from as diverse backgrounds as possible are needed in any situation. You won’t get anything new from a tired viewpoint.
I get what you’re saying about the state of video games these days. On one hand, we’ve got these mind-blowing graphics and immersive worlds that make you feel like you’re right in the middle of the action. But on the other hand, there's all the microtransactions and DLC stuff that can sour the experience. I’ve been gaming for years, and it feels like some developers have shifted from making great games to making money machines. No need to fork out extra cash for the “complete” experience. Nowadays, it’s like every game is just waiting to hit you with another purchase. And if you’re into modding and hacking, sites like https://guidedhacking.com/forums/gamephreakers-game-modding-t... are awesome. They have a ton of resources for those who want to tweak games or even create their own experiences. It’s a whole different side of gaming that can add a lot of fun and depth.
I think Video Games themselves are in a pretty great place to be honest... which the last decade given us gems like BOTW, Elden Ring, Ghost of Tushima, Hades, GoW, Spiderman, Baldurs Gate 3 etc.
Both the AAA space and indie landscape have produced some wonderful gems, and the recent impetus on 'cross-platform' offerings means that less and less titles are gatekept by ecosystem (timed exclusivity remains a 'thing' but it seems like eventually most games come to most platforms).
I think it is actually the industry itself that is a shell of its former self, with budgetary/finance issues and mismanagement leading to an atrocious amount of redundancies, shelved projects and even entire studio shutdowns.
MTX are being chased moreso than ever, and the predatory nature of these in some occasions is deplorable IMO
When technically there isn't a whole lot more to do the main thing to improve upon is the writing, which is good tbh.
And technically, there is still one area that can always be improved: immersion. It's 2024 but still not every game is truly immersive.
If we take Red Dead Redemption 2 as the game that really kicked that up a notch, quests felt more natural, the world and people in it actually seemed to function in a way that didn't need you to exist, populations and especially wildlife were more dynamic, the day/night and weather cycles impacted atmosphere and tone, weather affected your functionality as if you were too hot or cold you suffered for it.
And then look at Spider-Man 2. A big bunch of gamey garbage where the city is just a place that happens to contain a game.
There is still a long way to go for most games in terms of crafting environments that feel more realistic. And there are decisions to be made by some devs if they don't intend to commit to that. If the world you make is just a box that contains game events, just scrap the world itself and put all your effort into narrative, gameplay and make something entirely more cinematic with set pieces that lead to other non open segments within the world that have all of your quests and combat encounters within them (Naughty Dog get it) You won't lose anything from not being able to explore an empty sandbox, but you will gain many more hours of intense and engaging gameplay.
The main drag in gaming is when an idea catches on, but people copy it without any actual thought or effort as to why it works in other games and come up with some generic lifeless plop.
I don’t think a lot of the games released nowadays are bad. Although I prefer to play older games a ton, I have played several modern games that are my favorite, and I like them on an equal level like older games.
I only really think it’s industry, companies, and practices that ruin and bog it all down. It seemed that back in the 90s to 00s, it seemed that every single game was released in a great state, with nothing like bugs or it being half-baked. Nowadays, games with the highest of budgets can be released in broken and sometimes unplayable states and still sell well, and it isn’t until later after all the good sales numbers the developer chooses to fix the game with stuff like patches, when they should have had the game released in a working state already, but sometimes the mindset or goal is “money first, fix game last,” which can sometimes show how passionless and uncreative a few companies are. You also have micro transactions littering good games and ink being there to toss more of your money away to big companies. Everyday it seems like we always see news articles talking about the recent job layoffs at companies, or a video game company being permanently shut down by its parent company, and we also having companies like Activision-Blizzard that don’t treat employees right or equally and foster unhealthy work environments and behaviors and try to actively cover up any problems once they become public and damaging to their image. That is how I feel at least, since it seemed that the industry in the 1990s to 2000s appeared to be in a better state than it was now despite all the money and profit the industry has been making.
For me some games are just eh. There are too many examples through researching games, buying up some old. Some ways I feel about some or others. But eh to me mechanically I find games less exciting and the stories/adventures/level design less compelling or intriguing.
I think it's not only the safeness of shareholders but also just audiences. Casuals sure but also the nostalgia/what to stick with what people like of growing up, playing/wanting to play when older.
I mean even besides mechanically can be a challenge for adults over time or the themes/story telling benefits for adults I think mechanically even teen/adult games can be a bit boring and too much story/themes are pushed too much or are more safer then they used to be because more safer and money to get then niche and building it up or some mature parody games (conker, naughty bear, etc.) even don't exist anymore or can't unless it's a web show really.
Indies vary, to me puzzle games have been great, but racing/platformers have been eh, racing especially wow licenses, lacking personality in tracks, generic modes, when PS3/360 and before it was fun of event types not just souless licensed cars or not that fun, Indies have been hit and miss to me there, some good, some just as bland as AAA.
Shooters.... still MP, odd ones like Aveum/Space Marine 2/Bright Memory Infinite but might as well buy up the 7th gen ones and that's what I'm doing of sci-fi/fantasy or in-between not just historical or SWAT or otherwise,
hack n slashes or otherwise not sure and not easy to define genre ones are well good because they are branching out, that's why they can't be easily defined or the genre tag would be too long I guess like if it wasn't Metroidvania it'd be longer of interconnected exploration platformer or a number of other better to describe possiblities as only played Metroid not Castlevania I know I know.
Like first person animations could be better or enemy AI with losing/gaining abilities in a hive network way not just a wow a clone version of the protagonist way we have usually seen or other types of enemies, that's more the things I'd like to see happen.
Natural disaster games could happen more than just Disaster 4 on PS4 or Disaster Day of Crisis on Wii, even the small bug game of Metamorphosis by an Indie to me was not as fun as Mushroom Men or say Grounded or PS1 era platformers whether Toy Story 2/Bugs Life or with some big and small scale levels even. Sure Clive and Wrench did it to navigate a house but the game's side missions are pretty boring when even Banjo has more fun uses of the abilities in the levels. Something I found even Spyro 1 as simple as it is, balanced it's focus of gems/dragons/eggs but also super charge, powerful fire from Fairy Kisses, and other things.
It depends, I don't have some ideas till I see others and go hmm maybe this from this. Why is why I play retro games, what I missed but also inspiration for out of thin air ideas not just copy pasting those ideas (even if that can happen when unsure how to translate it to something else as I'm not of course prototyping anything when considering this).
Glover has different ball forms for puzzles. Space Station Silicon Valley many animals (something Biomutant could have done in it's character customisation mechanically not just gas immunity and visually or vehicle unlocks later via some missions or the glider/3 other things via the merchant you barely find later unless you know where to look aka the same problem I have with Korok NPC or the Faries to upgrade your gear in Breath of the Wild).
Watch Dogs had a play has whoever feature. Some games have different cool ideas it just depends.
We get skill trees instead of just exploration. Why not I guess? Makes it easy to put in a menu then to put it on the map and spend more time making things around it right? Yeah I'm not a fan of skill trees, they feel like a crutch and in other cases the perks/stats are so not satisfying. Very general things. Some games offer of course more abilities but other games just want to put it in the menu instead and more general perks and I don't find that fun, and no the do it whenever you want I mean whenever the game lets you that sense of choice isn't that much more fun to me personally.
Sure some PS3/360/Wii era games do have that part I'd get stuck in but I am not disappointed compared to other games being easier but also more boring because of the harder enemy or the directions or things. A boss sure but otherwise most things aren't as fun to me not because they are easy but what you do in the games isn't as fun anymore, the interacitivty got more boring. Maybe you get Mass Effect/Alpha Protocol/Infamous 1 or Spec Ops sort of moments felt dynamic if I did choose to shoot/save someone or did have a QTE/decision to make, those felt amazing, sure in Mass Effect I see it and do it on accident but in other cases I'd do it better next time then on accident and thinking it's like other games required QTEs not optional decisions.
But some times like a Second Son or other games are very safe and scripted moments of the intended 1 outcome every time or forced to play that way then the 2 different states I could have gone with (liked the missions not the good/bad points part was too safe/gamey to meet them and grinding good/bad if didn't have enough wasn't fun for how little it would offer, I had no issue with those but still, also good/bad restricted powers was ok but a bit eh). Having more dialogue and the wheels for them is fine but if it doesn't do much say for no reputation system why bother? It's just more dialogue for lore sure but bonds and more can lead to other systems with more rewards.
Astro to me blends that older eras but modernising but doesn't feel mechanically dull. Even Splatoon 2 to me was fun even if simple, it was enjoyable how it did things because it went lets do the Mario obstacles/enemies thing per level but using guns as gadgets to grapple or switches or whatever, was enough for me. Even my favourite PSP games do this just some simple things but how they use them to balance out things well and still be fun.
To me playing as generic characters (animals or humans) with generic missions in open worlds, or more enemies or more story or whatever has made me question games more.
It's why Foamstars regardless of being a live service why it's moveset was so dull. I wasn't going to play it anyway but that I was like why don't I come up with mode types or things to appear in the maps then just 2 repetitive modes from other games not just Splatoon as it's close comparison and a business model.
Diofield being ok of the character restriction missions or ok gameplay but so repetitive and boring of story/upgrading at I was like Valkyria Chronicles 4 had better pacing of parachute bombs, to ship turrets, to enemy types to scenarios. Not just spamming powerful attacks all the time, balancing the power/health meters and it feeling kind of boring to do over time.
Story can only get a game so far. To me gameplay matters not just words and characters designs and ok adventures sometimes.
Playing Neverdead I was like being dead and using your dead was as fun as Voodoo Vince or Sphinx and the Cursed Mummy. For 2012 it's great.
It depends on the game. I'm fine controlling a car or a tornado not just a human/animal/2 or four legged or realism focus so much. Or movie levels of fantasy.
What came before, what I missed out on, what hardware/controller gimmicks made sense to leave behind or could be expanded even if for a niche audience, etc.
With business models sure but with some genres that don't have them or don't need them I do find it questionable.
Like what game can I play as a tornado these days? On the Wii sure. Biomutant had gas immunity but the most basic open world missions/outposts and animal abilities so safe I was like what's the point you can swap it out with a human and regardless of the animal languages, checkpoint pole peeing and 4 legged sprinting what makes being an animal that fun I don't see it compared to many platformers with far more interesting movesets. Same can be said for Little Kitty Big City, it's fine to have inspiration from Stray/Goose game but it just felt dull to me and cat costumes is just like why?
Not everything has to be cinematic but PS3/360/Wii to me was interesting, some old gen versions were better, some games were still PS2 era like fun on either console, some that were trends of cover systems or racing rewind systems were born on PS2 of Killswitch (Gears/Uncharted popularised, never played Killswitch so no idea how clunky it is but 24 the game I think used it too and it was ok how it handled it but of course none of the moving around walls and flexibility in some games, though of course commonness of the both shoulder sides like Uncharted didn't happen in some games just 1 side) and Alfa Romeo Racing Italiano (an advertising game like Ford Racing but that dev did innovate like others in that era for racing games, Grid 2008 simplified it and had some difficulty to it of 0-5 rewinds and Forza Motorsport 3 made it the final form while Ride 4 made the FM1 & 2 region system more restrictive but also more innovated on of a form than it was too) then just kept forever in games throughout that era and today with not much expanding.
Certain changes or returns to ideas happen but also a lot of simplifying too I think. Some AAs are ok but not as ambitious I feel as they used to be. For some studios trying to match AAA in structure is an ambitious attempt but the problem I find is trying to match that isn't worth it because the games are bland, lack in areas they could increase personality yet don't and push other factors instead of say voice acting or car licenses or generic open world design, give me more tower defence or other things then just more and more boring outposts, give me more compelling open world mission types, we used to get minigame style ones in platformers or like Infamous Second Son/Sunset Overdrive nowadays it's just boring written stories with basic gameplay to them to attack, find and item, bring it back, do this and that in gameplay but the story may be decent but not that fun to PLAY only to LISTEN TO. The scenario becomes less fun.
To me the interacitvity is more unexciting not because everything is done, I don't think that's the case it's that we don't see it pushed as much or return as much as it used to because of casual audiences, because of devs what they take from games when they grew up/still play. Or their skills or their other jobs then go into gaming and it's very safe.
You guys thinking too much about video games.
As long there are developers who still making kids games for modern consoles both traditional way or gimmicky way (motion control, specific peripherals,etc), that's more than enough for me.
Forums
Topic: The State of Video Games
Posts 1 to 10 of 10
Sorry, this topic has been locked.