For the past few weeks I've been hoping through some of the free games I've collected through PlayStation Plus, both on PS3 and Vita, and it's gotten me curious on what games have been interesting and what games have failed to grasp me as much.

To put it into perspective I am at the moment playing Beyond Good and Evil HD, and I am loving it. The story may be weak, the graphics are blocky and janky, the game play is occasionally buggy, but I am having so much fun. However not too long ago I bought Wolfenstein: The New Order and got a little bored, only completing the game because I paid for it.

So why is it that some of these newer games can't seem to grasp a player as much as the older ones? I'm surely not the only one that thinks this, but in the age of modern gaming with HD resolution and realism, you'd think they'd naturally feel better in immersion.

Thoughts?

(And by no means am I saying 'all' modern games bad)

There were shitty games back then too. Shitty games usually don't become classics, so everyone forgets about them.

There were shitty games back then too. Shitty games usually don't become classics, so everyone forgets about them.

Daily Reminder Gex the Gecko exists.

Games are like 95% crap with maybe 3 really good titles a year. Been pretty consistent since the 80's. Similar to books. Movies are actually consistently quality if they aren't released on VHS tapes. And when they're bad, they can be hilariously bad.

So why is it that some of these newer games can't seem to grasp a player as much as the older ones?

Part of it is nostalgia. Part of it is, yeah, we forget the crappy games. But there's more to it than that, in my opinion.

Firstly, simplicity can win out in a LOT of cases. Let's look at Quake 3 for instance. Quake 3 is a simple 1st person shooter based around multiplayer arenas: spawn, grab gun, kill guy with gun, take guy's gun, die, respawn, rinse and repeat. It has no story; it has no super complex mechanic for me to grasp; yet somehow that game was the game I loved most for three or so years, and I still play it on and off afterwards.

I think the gameplay is just way more simple and, well, instinctual than shooters made today. You have health and armor and guns and that's it; you can jump, you can crouch, you can run and duck and weave, but nothing else has really ever delivered that lovely "Run and gun" gameplay that I love besides maybe Borderlands 2. Even then, Quake 3 wins out. It's good, simple fun. And it has needless gore that looks like a joke rather than like the game is trying to take itself seriously.

Simplicity also makes a game easier to balance. Simplicity also lets you focus on other elements of the game, like making animations feel crisper or adding little details to the scenery. Simple design also means you don't have to drop an infodump onto the player as a "tutorial." In general, simple but deep games are really good.

(Of course, not all of the great games from the past are "simple." One of my all time favorites is King of Dragon Pass. I'm not sure what complexity I'd call that game, but it sure ain't "simple.")

Now, there are plenty of modern games that deliver and damn do they deliver. But I do think games are getting more complex and we're expecting more out of them. Heck, imagine if someone gave you a sandbox RPG and didn't let you customize your character. In the past, you'd be okay with that, totally okay. Nowadays, that might actually be a reason not to buy a game if customization is important enough to you.

And of course: never underestimate nostalgia, and never forget that the games of the past that are with us today are the big names of their time. Tons of lesser known games have been lost to us.

I know I'm like two weeks late here but I like this video in regards to this question. The tone can offend a lot of people, but keep in mind casual doesn't necessarily mean bad. But I think it's a reason why we see a decline in gaming, especially in the case of games being made for consoles before PCs.

However, I'd still argue that games have overall improved and continue to do so. It's just easier to make bad ones and the whole market is a cash cow.

I know I'm like two weeks late here but I like this video in regards to this question. The tone can offend a lot of people, but keep in mind casual doesn't necessarily mean bad. But I think it's a reason why we see a decline in gaming, especially in the case of games being made for consoles before PCs.

However, I'd still argue that games have overall improved and continue to do so. It's just easier to make bad ones and the whole market is a cash cow.

That video is poop. It's not just his tone that offends me, it's him acting like his opinions on how games should be made are objective facts, and it ends up with everything he says really boiling down to "I don't like when games do things I don't like so therefor it's objectively failing."

As a rebuttal this and this.

But even then, linking videos to guys who wank about games is ridiculous, because like any other form of art, it's entirely dependent on the viewer, and therefor entirely subjective.

Honestly? I have a few old games nobody cares about that I still play over new, graphics heavy ones.

@Ace of Hearts I agree completely! In the end it's all opinion.

However, I stand by the fact opinion that games aren't being held to the same standards of quality as they used to. Not by developers necessarily, but by gamers. And this is what I mean by it's easier to make "bad" games but this isn't necessarily a bad thing: it's easier for people to play games than it's ever been before, creating a bigger audience. And I think this is cool!! However, you can't please everyone with every game so I feel like some games are often watered down / simplified to appeal to more people (and yes, I would still include Skyrim and Oblivion on that list, but I still love the games nonetheless).

And if you're okay with that, that's fine. But I encourage people to figure out what they really like in a game and seek out games and/or developers that cater to that.

But on a side note: "...acting like his opinions on how games should be made are objective facts." If you lack conviction, your opinion probably isn't worth stating tbh. I just assume everything everyone says is nothing more than an opinion unless it's academic and backed by "objective" sources, haha. Even if they present it "objectively."

@Ace of Hearts I agree completely! In the end it's all opinion.

However, I stand by the fact opinion that games aren't being held to the same standards of quality as they used to. Not by developers necessarily, but by gamers. And this is what I mean by it's easier to make "bad" games but this isn't necessarily a bad thing: it's easier for people to play games than it's ever been before, creating a bigger audience. And I think this is cool!! However, you can't please everyone with every game so I feel like some games are often watered down / simplified to appeal to more people (and yes, I would still include Skyrim and Oblivion on that list, but I still love the games nonetheless).

And if you're okay with that, that's fine. But I encourage people to figure out what they really like in a game and seek out games and/or developers that cater to that.

But on a side note: "...acting like his opinions on how games should be made are objective facts." If you lack conviction, your opinion probably isn't worth stating tbh. I just assume everything everyone says is nothing more than an opinion unless it's academic and backed by "objective" sources, haha. Even if they present it "objectively."

Well, exactly. You can't please everyone.

I really don't feel that the ES series is being watered down. I think that they've removed some elements that really only ever boiled down to busywork or redundant mechanics.

Mechanical complexity doesn't really translate to depth, a lot of the time.

Example: Morrowind and Oblivion both feature attributes. To increase your Magicka, you increase your intelligence at level up. In this case, Intelligence is a middleman. Increase up your intelligence to increase your mana pool. Whereas in Skyrim, you increase your mana to increase your mana.

That's just one example, but in all honesty, the removal of attributes isn't really a big deal, as the only ones that are really 'lost' are Agility and Speed.

Everything else is subjective though. I'm fine with Quest Markers, fine with an easier journal system, fine with a game that's attempting to be accessible to wider audiences.

Because that leads into a slippery slope of gamer elitism. The idea that the 'casuals' are ruining vidya.

@Ace of Hearts Oh that I totally agree with. Mechanics (such as basic game play and the journal system) are best kept simple so the player can focus on the game and not HOW it's being played. If that makes sense. The ES games have only improved in gameplay. And I appreciate and value the simplicity in attributes and leveling up (I have always been super bad at stats, even as a table top gamer and I think a lot of people are).

But--especially with RPGs--the freedom the player has to make choices and deal with the consequences are important to me. The storyline of Skyrim is very black and white, you pick one side or the other, and you run with it getting similar outcomes anyway. That's watered down and too simplistic to me. There are things you just can't do as a player even if it seems like a blatant option. And it creates this...disconnect.

When it comes to moral ambiguity, writers have to walk a very tight rope, because I've seen so many developers/writers fail at trying to present it.

It always boils down to, something like...."well, this thing has good aspects but negative aspects as well." Which is fine, and it's realistic, but the level of the negative aspects cannot overtake the positive ones.

Fallout: New Vegas is a prime example of failed moral ambiguity. Obsidian tried to show us why Caesar's Legion is an equally viable choice to consider compared to the NCR, House, or the independent path, because they're stable (they aren't) and keep their lands in tight safety (from non-Legion memebers).

They're also a horrifically brutal society (fine with so far) that engage in slavery (you lost me) and what what I would call 'Institutionalized Rape' in order to breed children to become soldiers. I'm sorry, but when you have to resort to slavery, misogyny and rape to make your video game faction 'dark and gritty' and then attempt to tell me that they're actually just as valid as anyone else, I'm both disgusted and alienated.
There are lines of taste that shouldn't be crossed. Slavery and misogyny cannot be used for good intentions.

There are certain lines that are drawn, lines of taste. Having all of that in the game is one thing, but I won't abide by people telling me that it isn't evil.

And don't even get me started on how it's handled in Dragon Age, ugh.

Moral ambiguity needs to stop being "both sides are wrong" and it needs to start being "both sides are right"

'Would you rather have your hand cut off or your foot' vs 'would you rather drive a Honda or a Fiat'

This is a tangent, yes.

<Snipped quote by Kidd>
But even then, linking videos to guys who wank about games is ridiculous, because like any other form of art, it's entirely dependent on the viewer, and therefor entirely subjective.

I don't view games as art, I view them as entertainment. I view games designed with the intention of being art as art, but most aren't. When a painter brings his brush to a canvas, he starts with the intention of creating art. That isn't to say that the intro of Bioshock 1 wasn't "artistic". It was barely interactive so all you were left with is some form of art. Aka it was an actually useless scene from a gameplay perspective, but there's that Oscar Wilde quote about art that goes "The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely". But the game design of shooting people in the face and electrocuting them wasn't created with the intention of art. It was created with the intention of creating an experience and not all experiences are art. Paintball, while it does have paint, wouldn't be considered an art form.

That's why paintball and video games have the word "game" attached to them. What makes a fun experience can be subjective too though, so I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.

Edit: I suppose I dislike the notion of calling everything "art" because in the case of videogames the word has been attached only very recently to something that for most people is just "fun shooty/fighting/strategy" experiences. For the vast majority of gamers, games are a hobby to whittle away the hours. The same can be said of movies, but movie goers don't typically sit down for six hours at a time and then proceed to revolve their lifestyle around one single hobby.

Well, I would say that a pleasant side benefit of most forms of art is that they also exist to entertain. Movies, music, novels, etc. Video games are hardly unique in this sense.

<Snipped quote by Ace of Hearts>

I don't view games as art, I view them as entertainment. I view games designed with the intention of being art as art, but most aren't. When a painter brings his brush to a canvas, he starts with the intention of creating art. That isn't to say that the intro of Bioshock 1 wasn't "artistic". It was barely interactive so all you were left with is some form of art. Aka it was an actually useless scene from a gameplay perspective, but there's that Oscar Wilde quote about art that goes "The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely". But the game design of shooting people in the face and electrocuting them wasn't created with the intention of art. It was created with the intention of creating an experience and not all experiences are art. Paintball, while it does have paint, wouldn't be considered an art form.

That's why paintball and video games have the word "game" attached to them. What makes a fun experience can be subjective too though, so I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.

Edit: I suppose I dislike the notion of calling everything "art" because in the case of videogames the word has been attached only very recently to something that for most people is just "fun shooty/fighting/strategy" experiences. For the vast majority of gamers, games are a hobby to whittle away the hours. The same can be said of movies, but movie goers don't typically sit down for six hours at a time and then proceed to revolve their lifestyle around one single hobby.

I disagree. Video games don't constitute fine art, but I don't think the requirements for being art should be particularly specific. Fine art is the shit we frame, and hold above everything else as shining example of human achievement. The Mona Lisa, Citizen Cane, The Statue of Liberty, Don Quixote, Handel's Messiah, these constitute fine art. Video games don't have anything that don't meet that standard for no other reason but the format isn't respected enough at this point in its development.

But art? That just means a creative achievement in general. Anything that has been given some sort of noticeable human creative touch. A car can be art. So can a store-bought product, or everything on deviant art. I would venture to say the RPG had never produced fine art, but everything we write here is art. All it takes is a conscious effort to make something aesthetic. There is no reason to disdain run-of-the-mill human creation because it hasn't reached the level of fine art.

As for Movie goers not letting their lives revolve around movies, I think Star Wars would have something to say about that. On the other hand, most gamers just play games for a few hours and leave it at that in the exact same way most people watch movies.

@Vilageidiotx

I'd venture to iterate that fine-art is really any sort of artistic accomplishment that has a long standing symbolic and cultural weight to it. Some quality that makes it persist as a relevant feature far and beyond the period when it was contemporary; while other relative pieces may not be so much because they're not as relevant anymore.

Mona Lisa has a certain degree of immortality for the mysterious legacy it offers. The Statue of Liberty its own for symbolizing the revolutionary principles of liberty and in America as the symbolic representation of the immigrant peoples that make up all the people of the US. And so on.

By this standard video games aren't nearly old enough for us to have weeded up the culturally specific to their period or the period inclusive and long-reaching symbolic importance that'd be required to achieve creative immortality. Not even the earliest games like Pong have reached that point, but I feel when anthropologists look back at video-games they might disregard Pong as the sort of generic clay pot to what might be perceived as the marble sculptures of Rome that could be the present and matured titles (in that they have realized an awareness as a story medium, taking on a production scale and vision akin to putting on Shakespeare's Caesar or Romeo Juliet, or Citizen Kane among all together more sophisticated means).

Pong might still be important, or Pac Man. But as something that's looked as the necessary stepping stones of creation as making a clay vase in Greece as a precursor to the Parthenon.

@Dinh AaronMk

I agree completely. I think there is a good chance that, when video games have reached the point where they might be considered fine art, it will be pure examples of what video games are that will become immortalized. Same reason that Citizen Kane isn't necessarily considered great for the story as much as it is the film-making. It'll probably end up being Super Mario that gets elevated to fine art status first. That'd be my guess.

@Vilageidiotx

Quake or Golden Eye too might very well be remembered as the revolutionary title that brought to the world the present-day First Person Shooter game.

Where Doom or the classic Wolfenstein may have given birth to it, Golden Eye would be the revolution for that genre in the way Mario revived video games after the eighties crash.

If there is one video game I'd go so far as to art, I'd have to say This War of Mine. That's a game that is much more than just a game: it's social commentary, it makes us think about what we're doing and why we're doing it, and it does it all by simply replacing the zombie element of zombie games with a human one. Hell, playing that game brought out emotions in me I didn't think a video game could make me feel. It made me think about the price of war, and it at one point made me so angry at a character - and I'm a calm person - that I forgot all my rational planning in that level and rushed at the bad guy with a gun wielding only a hatchet. I didn't even sneak up on him, that's how angry I was.

(And I died, of course.)

Would I put this video game on display? Well... Honestly, yes. If I had more money and ever wanted to run a video game museum of sorts, I'd be sure to put this video game on its own special console and let people play it. See, like a lot of great works of art, I feel like This War of Mine is something that people should experience and is something that both comes from and speaks of a unique point in human history. Its gameplay encapsulates so much so elegantly, and while I can't replay the game very often, neither do I go back and look at my favorite paintings over and over. It's an experience, and I want to share it.

And perhaps the only thing that prevents video games like This War of Mine from being "fine art" is that fine art is, by its very nature, typically kept at a hands off distance. It's meant to be observed, not touched, and this helps make it refined. A video game is meant to be interacted with, to be engaged with. That, I believe, is the critical component that makes people see even the most artistic, colorful, and expressive video games as "just a game."

Extra Credits is a channel that talks about this, and they do it better than I do. I hope that one day the general populace can view certain video games as art. But I think that will be a long time from now if that ever happens.