It is a huge mental fallacy to think that old games had to lean on story because the graphics were not that good or the maps were not that big. Those games were the cutting edge when they came out and no one then had seen anything beyond them.

@eccer

4 ай бұрын

Look at my comment, I adressed this, I think this dude needs some more perspective hehe, but he is on the right track. What gaming is, is first and foremost, as our first developers who inspired all companies today, it simply boils down to, GOOD IMMERSIVE GAMEPLAY :) It is why indie developers get it, and AAA devs fails. AAA wants games that sells, and indie devs has simply more passion put into the product.

@McHobotheBobo

4 ай бұрын

@@eccer It's a perfect example of the limits imposed on development by the capitalist system, how finance always ends up coming before real art, resources, or people

@titanayrum

4 ай бұрын

exactly. Quake and Half Lie were mind boggling games at the time. No one could compete with their graphics. Then we got games like Perfect Dark for the N64, Shadow of the Colossus for PS2, and Crysis on the PC, all those games crushed their competition in terms of graphics

@David-ix1qi

4 ай бұрын

I don’t necessarily agree, with the advances in tech, there are so many more tools and possibilities now, that just tackling a games art style and direction is a daunting task. Devs I’d imagine they then have to work a hell of a lot harder to meet a minimum standard of what’s expected in todays modern games. I’m ignorant on the topic of game design and development, but what he said sounded intuitive to me.

@NARCO.2210

4 ай бұрын

Interesting, I still find that After playing more and more Older Games in recent years, they tell a lot more interesting and high quality stories. Especially when you compare them with modern Games that came out in the last Couple of years.

Here's the thing: we DID look at those games back then and say "They look incredible!" because, for that time, they WERE incredible.

@crestofhonor2349

4 ай бұрын

Yup. Standards were different. If a game came out looking like it does today back then, they'd be even more impressed. It's like how movies like the original Toy Story was impressive back in 1995 but looks extremely dated today thanks to much better animation, lighting, and modeling technology today. People's standards are set by the limitations of technology of the time

@mickjayplays

4 ай бұрын

@@crestofhonor2349 It's not so much that *standards* were different. Expectations weren't even different. The tech just wasn't up to the level that it is today. Back then, the top end games were the best that current technology could deliver...so they WERE "incredible". The idea that "well the graphics back then sucked (by TODAY'S standards), so they had to tell good stories to make up for it" is ridiculously shortsighted. The games told good stories because, in general, it doesn't matter how mind-blowing the graphics are...if you don't have a good story, the game is going to suck. Period.

@Dalendrion

4 ай бұрын

I remember playing Morrowind for the first time, and being awestruck by its sunsets. I would climb a hill, and just watch. The sun would go down, the sky would slowly get more and more golden. The sound of the creatures, the musical backdrop. Then the first stars would appear. It was the first time I had ever seen a day-night cycle in a 3D game, and it was amazing. Great memory. Today, though... been there, done that.

@crestofhonor2349

4 ай бұрын

@@Dalendrion Not the first game with a day night cycle but it could have been many people's first. Another iconic game with one is Ocarina of Time

@J.Crime123

4 ай бұрын

​@@crestofhonor2349my earliest memory of a game with a day night cycle was seiken densetsu 3 on the snes(the fan translates rom) that was really Something i was astound with.

The difference is not a matter of what is possible, but what is required. Game development has shifted over the years from being about making experiences, to making a marketable product. This is the philosophy behind all decisions, and it causes the games to be unfocused, rather than being too focused on one area. There's no focus by developers because the direction is decided by management, and management has decided that controlling direction is the best way to make a profitable triple A game. There's no appreciation for innovation because there's no one present in the teams that has "innovator" as their job title. There's no place for it in big game studios.

@ged-4138

2 ай бұрын

Lol as if The Gamers don't treat games now more and more like a craft, a product, as opposed to an art. The internet throws a hissy-fit when something isn't on-par with "consumer demands" and is done in an experimental way. The discourse online around games is extremely entitled: "I want my product my way, you lazy devs, go make product, make consumer happy". Sales are driven exclusively by marketing circlejerks. It's always been a two-way street and most are too blind to see that.

@lizardy2867

2 ай бұрын

@@ged-4138 Both of our statements are true, but one does not directly cause the other. It doesn't make sense to say Suicide Squad exists in the state it does, solely because gamers chose to buy games that are like it. The goals I outlined which studios pursue, exists regardless of market conditions, it is inherent to being in a market in the first place. It is through the past 10 or so years that they have gradually become as focused on it as they are now. Yes I agree that consumers play a part in that change, yet I'll reiterate that the change itself exists regardless of conditions.

We actually did talk about the graphics looking incredible back then, pretty often. Each new advancement was remarkable, and advancements were made frequently. Flashback, Virtua Racing, Duke3D, Quake, Dungeon Keeper, Phantasmagoria, MotoRacer, Thief, Half Life, CoD, HL2... I remember wow'ing at the graphical improvements on each one of them and many more. Even in the late 80s/early 90s, on the consoles and the arcades, some games were something to behold in terms of visuals, since we hadn't yet seen anything more sophisticated.

@BekoPharm

2 ай бұрын

And we totally bought em all. I mean… mostly… sometimes years later 🙃

@Igor369

2 ай бұрын

The fact that wolf 3d came in 1992, doom in 1993 and quake in 1996 is fucking mindblowing.

@hugofontes5708

2 ай бұрын

If anything, I talk about graphics less now than back then.

The most noticeable change is that innovation in games stopped being so much about improving the gaming experience, and started being more about developing systems to improve their profitability.

@rasmachris94

4 ай бұрын

I've said it before, I'll say it again - publicly traded companies are killing gaming. Because they have investors to please they have to get more profit each quarter and they cant be satisfied with just turning a substantial profit. So every game appeals to everyone at all times and it just becomes mediocre rather than focusing on a dedicated niche. This is why games from studios like Fromsoft Grinding Gear Games and Larian Studios are so beloved - they have a niche, they know it well and they deliver solely on that to the best of their ability. They accel and innovate in ways that other games companies never could simply because they've built experience perfecting their niche. It's honestly why the indie market has exploded and seen meteoric rises with the likes of Fall Guys, Vampire Survivors, Lethal Company etc. They are passionate about their niche, they just need to turn a profit and they dont try to appeal to everyone. They know their market and appeal to just them and that's more than enough.

@ForOne814

4 ай бұрын

@@rasmachris94 how are they killing gaming of the market grows year after year? Indie market has exploded because indie gamedevs now make good games. Because they're able to make good games, because the underlying technology exists for it. You can take unreal engine for free, put together some free assets, put together mechanics using blueprints and guides how to use them, boom, done, you have a complete game. It might be crude, but if the idea is good, you can make it work, without any skills necessary whatsoever, you can learn to use the technology in the process and it's easy to learn and use. Back in a day, what was available? Flash? Well, yeah, most good indies from back in a day were remakes of flash games. Meatboy, Isaac, etc.

@midriffzero

3 ай бұрын

Hit the nail on the head, right there

@rasmachris94

3 ай бұрын

Financial success does not translate to a good game. I'm not talking about financials. If you looked at that solely, mobile games would be the most successful games of all time and yet we know that they are laden with predatory mechanics to entice users to spend with mediocre mechanics and gameplay. Which is the direction AAA studios are going. They are not content with making a profit, they are only interested in rinsing you for all you're worth for the least amount of effort possible. I agree on the indie part, the ease of access of technological advancements has allowed an outbreak of small teams to do incredible things and honestly I'm thankful for it. Without technological advancements we'd be beholden to whatever the AAA industry decides to push out in whatever state. I was speaking in hyperbole referring to it killing the games industry. it's more specifically that as a lot of the AAA industry is struggling to produce anything of quality; Remastering old content in the laziest way possible, re-packaging the same ideas in new skins and lacking meaningful innovation. The indie industry however is flourishing. I think that it's becoming more and more apparent that the AAA industry is just looking to produce products for another financial quarter rather than for the passion of the game itself. So we should look towards indie games for quality in the future because the AAA industry doesnt show any signs of changing any time soon - actively being outraged at quality being released by other AAA devs, like Elden Ring and BG3. @@ForOne814

@pun15h3r.

3 ай бұрын

yes all cause of shitty mobile games...

Graphics have always been something devs and players gush about. I remember interviews with Todd Howard talking about all the work that went into Oblivion's graphics. Or how everyone loved the grass physics in the early Far Cry games. The limitations were graphical but it was still a major focus. Back then gaming was more niche, today there is a much wider audience and so game companies have made game blander to appeal to more potential gamers. Also the studios themselves were much smaller so devs teams could really work together to laser focus on stories and ideas. Now the studios are so big and corporate that individual teams have to get permission for this or that and sometimes aren't even privy to the overall goals of the game. They are just told do this thing by this time. It's not really a collaboration anymore. Just some of my thoughts as an old gamer.

@Ntwister

4 ай бұрын

so true. but i have to add that graphics was more rarely prio 1 (compared to today) but rather a secondary goal.

@vera-linnlanangen6396

4 ай бұрын

Hear hear

@markwalch6065

4 ай бұрын

Todd howards a corporate hack.😂

@bullet1544

4 ай бұрын

Very, very true.

@jmhaces

4 ай бұрын

Exactly. I literally remember being a kid and playing the original Super Mario Bros on the NES for the first time back in the late '80's and talking with my friends about how this new console's graphics blew the Atari 2600 and other previous consoles out of the water, just like the Atari itself had put things like Pong to shame. The exact same thing happened when every subsequent generation of consoles came out. The SNES and SEGA Genesis were amazing in comparison to the NES and SEGA Master System, then the original Playstation came out and it was even better, then the PS2 and the X-Box, and so on. Every single time this happened people have talked about how mind-blowing the new systems' graphics were in comparison to the earlier generation.

Dude I still remember talking to my friends and cousins about Wolfenstein3D and how realistic the graphics were. Visuals have pretty much always been at the forefront of estimating a game's quality, since they've been the most in-your-face benchmark of a game being on the latest tech.

@silverwatchdog

2 ай бұрын

Sure wolfenstein 3D was mighty impressive for its time but I just can’t see how you can see those graphics as realistic. It’s like saying super Mario bros looked realistic. Impressive for the time, but far from realistic. Maybe after about 2005 or so did games start looking realistic and they have gotten really realistic in the last 7 years.

@woodsie315

2 ай бұрын

@@silverwatchdog The brain fills in the gaps and it's impossible for current generations to wrap their heads around the degree to which the previous generations were able to do that on the media content of their times. There's an old black and white film from the early 1900s where there was a scene where a train was coming towards the audience from their perspective and when they showed it in theaters people actually panicked and fled because they thought an actual train was going to run them over right there in the theater. People in 2024 wouldn't even blink and would probably keep looking down at their phones in boredom. I very much got sucked into Wolfenstein 3D when it came out.

3:23 no, the reason the stories, characters and details we so much more beautiful back then it's because the devs loved what they were doing, they had passion, now the have to follow the orders of the corporate CEO who only care about agendas, micro transactions etc.

@RippahRooJizah

26 күн бұрын

Gaming has gotten more corporate, yes, but as someone who has lived through the "old days" and collect old games and see a lot of stuff pertaining to that time, I couldn't say every dev worked 'with passion' back then either.

"Because we buy every single game they release". THIS.

@mrow7598

4 ай бұрын

Why I normally wait for games to be at minimum 50% off.

@user-cz9ng7jo2q

4 ай бұрын

@@mrow7598Smart man!

@shinshinshin81

4 ай бұрын

It's choice also. I have access to hundreds of games through ps+ and game pass. When I was young I'd save up, buy a game, and even if it was difficult or complex to learn, I'd learn it out of a lack of choice. Now if I download a game and I don't get hooked in the first hour or two, I delete and try something else

@dolaski

4 ай бұрын

@@mrow7598 same here man, but even so it's still way too expensive here in Brazil

@dolaski

4 ай бұрын

@@shinshinshin81 i despise these services. Don't get me wrong, they have their uses like you said, but I despise paying for something I won't own. Then when they take certain game out of the catalog and I still wanna play it... Well.. I won't be able to. So no, it's not a choice, prices are high and should drop. Drastically.

People will buy, no innovation needed.

@funkyhomosapien1

4 ай бұрын

Especially the youngsters!

@devdutdutta8796

4 ай бұрын

The phrase, 'Don't criticize problem, just consume product' has never been more true

@Lizards_Lounge

4 ай бұрын

Yep, I grew up in a time where ALMOST EVERYONE was involved in sports.. had FRIENDS... today we literally have entiire generations of game ADDICTS who will say "But theres this 1, 2 or 3 games in recent years"" leaving out the other 50 games and thousands of $$ they spent in that time finding those few games. We also live in a society where IQ has been rapidly dropping since 90s and testosterone since 50s.. Part of a MUCH bigger problem unfortunately.

@lenol0315

4 ай бұрын

✡️Greedy corporations and brainless consumers

@cendresaphoenix1974

4 ай бұрын

I mean to be fair this video itself proves that people are waking up.

I sat with my friend playing Doom in 1993 and I said "the graphics cent get much better than this" - to me, there and then, the graphics were photorealistic

One of the BIGGEST reasons I bought a handheld. Is to play an older game while relaxing on my couch. There are a lot of older games I can't play back in my childhood days.

With so many games out there these days, I find myself going back and playing games from my childhood pretty often. Sure, I'm probably blinded by nostalgia, but I feel like old games had a lot more going for them relative to the technology at the time. At the risk of sounding cliche, modern games just don't have as much soul. I feel like older games they weren't just about selling a product, but the developers had a vision and wanted to tell a story or create a unique world.

@jmlkhan5153

4 ай бұрын

I played metal gear 2 solid snake for the first time a month ago, having already played all the other titles in the series multiple times, and frankly I think it's my favorite one. No nostalgia involved, it's just a really good game.

@burningsheep4473

4 ай бұрын

No, it's understandable. Some games just are better (for you). It always includes a subjective element, no matter how old or new something is. Some people are having fun with Suicide Squad for instance. Well, let them ;) But still, I have discovered a lot of games that I really like in the last few years. It just means I have also played a good amount I didn't like so much ;) So, finding those games that are for you is the problem. Simply because there are just so many nowadays.

@crestofhonor2349

4 ай бұрын

It depends. Games were as much about selling as they were today. Developers back then were trying to figure out what worked and what didn't. Some games were overly mechanics heavy and others were extremely simple. Kojima is a good example of someone who likes a lot of detail to his games and he still does this to this very day. Many modern AAA games are trying to aim a bit too broad with their audiences probably because budgets are very high. Thankfully smaller games tend to be a bit more focused and less broad. There's a ton of great stuff today, you just have to sort through the crap just like back then.

@jmlkhan5153

4 ай бұрын

@@crestofhonor2349 since we're in a discussion about finding great new games, I have to mention rain world. Subjectivity obviously applies but for me it's one of the best games that's come out in a long time.

@user-sl6gn1ss8p

4 ай бұрын

A lot of people who are, say, twenty today do this. But a lot of people who are 35 nowadays also did this when they were 20. So the games one group is playing in favor of new stuff were the new stuff some older people were avoiding in favor of even older stuff. I think it's just natural to want to revisit games you played in your formative years, and not so much an indication of the current state of games. That's even the more so if you count all the "recent" influx of great indie titles.

What’s wrong with modern gaming is the hyper-focus on monetization and maximization of profits. Games are an art and entertainment medium first and foremost; they should be ENTERTAINING and allow people to experience stories and other creative elements of art in a directly interactive way that no other medium can. The big game companies do not make games just to *make games* anymore. They make games for the SOLE purpose of making money. And that is the exact point at which every medium of art loses its soul and audience fatigue sets in; the same is true for movies and tv shows at this very point in time. Take a look at a recent example of TLOU’s canceled Factions II project. This was game that was hinted at for years now and the fanbase of TLOU was extremely excited for it. It would have sold very well. Yet, Bungie comes in and declares that the game would not have had enough of a steady cash flow from microtransactions for an online multiplayer-focused live-service game, and so the entire project has been SCRAPPED. That game should have been made, just like Star Wars Battlefront 3, and many more throughout our history of gaming. When games have such HUMONGOUS budgets such as $100m+, companies have to make up for that with a focus on profit in the form of microtransactions and a hyper-focus on the trends of the market. These ridiculously over-inflated budgets need to be returned to a sustainable level so that developers are not crunched and creativity can flourish without the expectation of reaching a profit to exceed their bloated budgets.

@brandonuzumaki

2 ай бұрын

Especially since either half, or sometimes more than half, of those inflated budgets are all spent on marketing, marketing is good, it's important, but if you have to spend half your budget on it, you are doing something very wrong, especially in this day and age with all the streamers, youtubers, tik tokers, etc that would advertise your game for free (some of them at least).

@AM-wv5qy

2 ай бұрын

Yeah have i seen any triple a studio make a game with low graphics and main focus on the story and combat system ?

It's interesting that your current observations echo those of older players who grew up gaming in the 80s and 90s and watched the transition from 8-bit and 16-bit into 32 and 64-bit. By the year 2000, many of those gamers were noticing smaller worlds but greater details in the environment, often at the expense of more meaningful gameplay. As technology continues to advance, there is less and less necessity for games to focus heavily on gameplay elements to wow and attract the audience. There's definitely a lot more into it, but it is definitely interesting that your observations are pretty much identical to observations of people back when these older games were first made.

@J.B.1982

4 ай бұрын

I've been playing since 8-bit Nintendo and don't remember these complaints. Perhaps a little but it pales in comparison to what it is now. Maybe with PC games but console games only got so complicated.

@vlad48329reborn

3 ай бұрын

It was with both when i was growing up. Different regions will have different people; which means different opinions & views on life. I'll chock this up to regional differences in where we lived. @@J.B.1982

I'm kinda over online gaming as well. Funny how i started out with single player, online gaming blew up, and now i'm going back 20 some odd years later to single player lol.

I have been playing video games since the late 1970s. There has always been a tension between graphics and other aspects of games. The desire to take advantage of the capabilities of the latest hardware is strong, and it leads to an arms race. Unfortunately, this can result in graphics being unnecessarily prioritized over other elements. Back around the late 1990s, one of my friends observe this. In response to a game that he found inadequate, he described "an awful lot of graphics and very little game." I can't remember which game he was talking about, but there certainly were games back then that went all in on graphics to the detriment of the game - for example, Ultima IX, which was widely detested by long time Ultima fans. Realistic-looking 3-D games were just getting started during that decade, and while they may look primitive by today's standards, they looked impressive when they came out. Nothing is new here. These days, "an awful lot of graphics and very little game" still applies to flashy games with mediocre content, and I'm sure this will continue far into the future. As for the decline in story telling and the general staleness of many contemporary video game franchises, a focus on graphics is only one contributor to the problem, and I don't think it is even a major contributor in most cases. At the risk of sounding like a cantankerous old elitist gamer (which maybe I am), the mainstreaming of gaming and the growth of a more casual type of player base has likely contributed. Many modern games feature simplistic stories and a lot of hand holding - Skyrim, for example. This makes the games very approachable, which brings in the big audience and the money, but something was lost in the progression from Daggerfall to Skyrim. The systemic depth of the early Elder Scrolls games gives the player many layers of complexity to discover, while Skyrim is fun to explore but provides no mental challenge and is ultimately a shallow experience. It's a fun game to play when I simply want to turn my brain off and putter around in its world, but if I want immersion, Morrowind is a far better choice. The predatory monetization schemes that the AAA companies love to abuse only make things worse. When a game is designed around this type of system, nothing good will come of it. Furthermore, newer audiences don't remember the time before this started to happen, and they are being conditioned to accept it as normal. (To be fair, coin-operated arcade games could be considered the first example of predatory monetization in gaming. When I was a teenager, I wasted plenty of quarters in them, and the games were purposely designed to be insanely difficult in order to more rapidly separate teenagers from their money.) As indicated in the video, gamers are partially at fault for this state of affairs. Stop throwing money at microtransactions, and stop pre-ordering games or buying them soon after release. Do this, and the big companies will panic and will have to change their ways. I knew better than to pre-order Starfield or Cities: Skylines 2, and I still haven't bought them. I have come to accept that I'm no longer in the mainstream of gaming even though I have been a gamer for decades. The big budget blockbuster AAA games are simply not made for me. Grouchy old ladies aren't exactly the target audience these companies have in mind. I know a scam when I see it, so I stay away from live service games. I don't have reflexes, so hard core action games are not for me. I'm not impressed by ultra realistic graphics, so I won't buy a game simply because it looked neat in a preview video. There are plenty of indie games that appeal to me, and the big companies will occasionally throw some crumbs to the non-mainstream. Pentiment, for example, assumes that the player is intelligent and reasonably well educated in European history, philosophy, and religion - and it was made by Obsidian, a Microsoft subsidiary. I'm surprised, and also very pleased, that they were allowed to make it. The AAA segment of the industry may have turned into the gaming equivalent of modern day Hollywood, but the broader industry is in better shape than I've seen it in a long time. Look past the flashy but shallow releases from the big companies, and there is still plenty of fun to be had.

@chuckhaynes9166

4 ай бұрын

I wanted to take the time to thank you for this well thought out comment. Like you, I'm an old gamer, my first game being Ultima II in 1982. I think the real difference, is that when we were young, games were very participatory. The graphics, even when good for its time were meant as representations for our imagination. We made the stories from the canvas we were given. Cloth maps, feelies, ornate manuals. Even when graphics became sensational, a good story dealt heavily with our participation, that's why some games do become lauded, but overall still offer less to the player than something like System Shock or Underworld did. Nowadays considerable effort is made to make the player a passive participant. He moves the controller in known combinations unconsciously to get through to the next cutscene. Players almost see game play as tedious in some cases, seeking the next story evolution, like reading a book with skill checks to turn the page. I'm not sure this is necessarily good storytelling. Apologies for the length, it was the best comment on this video, and I felt a little sad it didn't get the attention it deserves.

@heatherharrison264

4 ай бұрын

@@chuckhaynes9166 Sometimes, I vomit out long comments on KZread videos when the subject is sufficiently interesting. I like to write. Every now and then, they result in good discussion, so it is worth it even if few people read them. Ultima III was my introduction to that series, and I quickly went back to Ultima I and II. Ultima II is a janky mess and something of a failed experiment, but it is about as fun as a failed experiment can be, and I spent a lot of time with it. I have to wonder how many people were able to complete it without resorting to a hint book. Remember the desk clerk at the Hotel California? This is one of the most important NPCs in the game, and the whole situation makes absolutely no sense. I remember being so excited when I figured this out - finally, I could make progress in the game. The feelies that came with some games were always a big part of the experience. Ultima was known for this. The Infocom text adventures were too, and the feelies often constituted the DRM of their day since they contained information that was necessary to complete the game. These text adventures certainly relied on the player's imagination, and if there had been graphics in these games, I don't think they would have worked as well. Later on, when Activision added graphics to the newer entries in the Zork series, I was disappointed. It didn't feel appropriate. Younger gamers today probably can't even imagine the concept of a game without any graphics. You make a great point about the passive nature of many of today's games. They rehash old ideas and old mechanics, and they tell the player exactly what to do. There is a place for games like this. Sometimes, after a hard day, I want to turn my brain off and relax with something that isn't going to demand anything from me. The rather nebulous "cozy game" genre is built around this concept, though some of them can be surprisingly complex if you dig beneath the surface or try to power game them. Cozy games don't pretend to be anything more than this, so I can respect them when they succeed at what they are trying to be. Many games these days look like they are trying for something more profound and engaging but only provide a surface level, passive experience, with lots of hand holding provided so that no thought is necessary. Skyrim can be fun, but I have a hard time seeing it as anything more than a cozy life sim in an epic setting. Many of the features of cozy games are there - wander around the world looking for loot, hoard the loot in the player house, craft things from the loot, get into some very easy combat, talk to NPCs and maybe romance one (who will become a generic non-person after marriage), and even do some farming. The dungeons are very linear, and there are markers to point the way on quests, so getting lost (and the resulting discovery of something interesting) is rarely a problem unless you purposely ignore the markers. Stories are simple, straightforward, and full of clichés. Fallout 4 is similar. Life sim activities are usually more fun than the quest lines. Neither the quest lines nor the cozy game activities require much thought. Fortunately, there are still games that make people think. City builders and other simulation games allow for creativity and require thinking about layout and logistics. Some RPGs still have good stories and complex mechanics (Baldur's Gate 3, for example). Some narrative adventures and walking simulators concentrate on the narrative and artistic style, and in many cases minimize game play mechanics so that the story is in the foreground. I like those that piece together the story out of snippets of information that the player comes across along the way so that the player has to think about how everything fits together. Pentiment, Dear Esther, Gone Home, and What Remains of Edith Finch do this. As I get older, I am starting to worry about the potential for the onset of dementia. It does appear that keeping the brain active into old age helps to delay or eliminate this problem. People who sit in front of the TV with their eyes glazed over aren't giving their brains much exercise. I have older relatives who gradually became senile as they sat around and did basically nothing. Video games could be great for providing active mental engagement as old age sets in, but sticking with games that are passive and provide little mental challenge might have a limited benefit. Still, even passive games are probably better than watching insipid TV shows and loud advertisements. I'm fortunate in that I like city builders, which exercise creativity and logical thinking, but don't depend on reflexes, which have never been good for me but will only get worse as I become more decrepit with advancing age. Hopefully, this will help me ward off dementia, and hopefully others will stick with gaming as they grow older. I really think it will be a productive hobby for the elderly.

@thomasnielsen5580

4 ай бұрын

Yeah, good comment.

@turtlekappa7141

4 ай бұрын

I agreed with this speech in it's entirety. Thank you ma'am.

@RegulusDex

4 ай бұрын

Similar to you, been gaming since the early 80's. I couldn't have written a better comment if you paid me. Completely agree!

There are still a ton of great innovative games coming out. They just aren't being made by the big companies.

@mikeity2009

4 ай бұрын

This sentiment is a lie. Your 2d niche lolworthy platformer created by a single dude in a musty basement with the intent to spread a "Lesson about life" or some other such nonsense doesn't constitute for innovation. Majority of indie games are trash and modern games are even worse. Stop it, i can't think of a single game that isn't boring derivative crap or commercialized slop. Even baldur's gate 3 had preorder bonuses and a broken ending with enough bugs to read like a holy cvs receipt. Required 5 patches just to get a stable framerate in act 3, GTFO here man.

@Urelasir

4 ай бұрын

​@@mikeity2009 I think and know your sentiment is wrong, and your whole opinion reeks of someone who really hasnt gotten into indie games. But hey, like you judged the other guy with nothing to hold.your opinion, I will do the same 🙂

@mikeity2009

4 ай бұрын

@@Urelasir I've played pretty much every indie game under the sun, aside from a few outlier's they're pretty much all the same. Yeah that's right go back into the rank smelly hole you crawled out of and shut up.

@VanaheimGames

4 ай бұрын

@@Urelasir Yea, not gonna respond to him, he clearly hasn't played many indie games if Baldur's Gate 3 is his only argument. Maybe he should try jusant or smth idk.

@burningsheep4473

4 ай бұрын

Yep, too many. Actually finding the ones that are right for you, is the actual problem.

Great video! I was just trying to explain my own frustrations with this earlier today. Specifically that developers are more often abandoning story, character development, detail, and world building to focus on player retention through online multiplayer/co-op, shallow replayability via procedural generation, and addictive loot mechanics. But I think you much more succinctly answered this by noting that it's simply a refusal or inability to create games that are emotionally resonant.

@dominiccasts

4 ай бұрын

Of course they are. Building a game that has the bare minimum of gameplay required to keep players playing, while building it around other players and interactions with them, making the other players be the content, is the most cost-effective way to generate content for players to experience. It's theoretically infinite ROI. Artless, yes, but lucrative.

@ForOne814

4 ай бұрын

Story was always optional in games. And it's the best thing about the medium.

Excellent video! Loved it and your perspective!

Assassins Creed released in 2007. In 2004 EA acquired 19.9% shares of Ubisoft for an estimated U$ 96 million. So during Assassins Creed development Ubisoft already had a market value of roughly half a billion dollars. Hardly what I would call a small developer. They were not as large as the large publishers, but as far as I know very few developers were much larger than them, or with a longer history and backlog, having been founded in the 80s.

@curious_one1156

3 ай бұрын

The gaming market has since then expanded tremendously. Even the best game was not as big as some average franchise today.

@user-sl6gn1ss8p

3 ай бұрын

@@curious_one1156 sure, but they were still valued at about half a billion dollars - which is maybe 15% of their current value, but still hardly what I would call a small developer.

@DanielGarcia-sj7bp

2 ай бұрын

okay user, what is the point of your comment cause it adds more to the fact that they have more money, less innovation. SO assuming or even admitting youre right, how does that help to any argument here? like, what is the focus?

@user-sl6gn1ss8p

2 ай бұрын

@@DanielGarcia-sj7bp The guy says they were a small company. That's just not true - they were among the largest developers at the time. You can still say that them growing led to less innovation, sure (although that's not an automatic conclusion), but you can't say they were small. The game being discussed as the good example still had one of the largest budgets at the time. Again, hardly a small developer. So yeah, growing can be tied to less innovation in this case (and probably in general), but the game seen as good was still made by a very large developer, not by a small one as claimed. In fact, I'd bet almost any current game which isn't "triple A" has a lower budget. This makes his claim a lot weaker and shows some bias, even if it doesn't invalidate all of it or the general idea. But more importantly, he presented a false fact and I just offered a correction - shouldn't that be reason enough?

@terrylandess6072

2 ай бұрын

Both my Atari 2600 and then Commodore 64 showed me who the players were in the development arena. Activision, Electronic Arts were both well entrenched before most players today had parents old enough to marry. It's always interesting to see history through the eyes of those whom weren't alive when it happened.

i thought i was getting old and games weren't cut out for me anymore but then i start playing skyrim out of nostalgia and just then i realize why i love gaming all those years ago

@acuteaura

4 ай бұрын

An Oblivion fan might scoff at that. A Morrowind fan might double scoff at that. And I think Black Isle era Fallout fans are still in the corner crying. I think this comment is a perfect example for how novelty is a huge part of enjoying games, and how ones own expectations rise over the years.

@user-pi2hs2ou4c

3 ай бұрын

i also went through this recently with skyrim lol

@alborzajeli768

3 ай бұрын

@@acuteaura As an Oblivion lover I concur, Skyrim although fun at times, pales in comparison and in a sense did in many ways reflect the slow downfall of gaming illuminated in this video...

@shanenice5380

3 ай бұрын

Skyrim was great.i keep hearing new games keep getting bugs and stories

@tessaPMpro

3 ай бұрын

When most people say "old games", they mean games from the 90s and early 2000s, not games from 2011.

Please will someone tell me the audio track used towards the end of this video before the outro and during! I’m sure I knew it and it’s been an ear worm ever since!

@ChimpRiot

Ай бұрын

Far Cry 5 - When the Morning Light Shines In.

In my opinion games from 2003 to 2014 were great at almost everything...

It's not about new games and old games. It's about passion and greed. Older videogames were made during a time when gaming wasn't as popular and was more of a niche thing, enjoyed by a smaller community who were often made fun of. As such, the market was smaller, and also the companies. They weren't as much motivated by greed bit more about making something they actually would like playing. A similar drive made me get into programming when I was 14, it started with me wanting to make a specific game that doesn't exist and I'd like playing. Same thing happens with movies and TV series. The original trilogy of LotR was made by a group of passionate people who wanted to offer us a true representation of what one of their favourite authors imagined, whereas the Amazon series RoP was a cashgrab and and absolute disaster filled with characters whose only purpose was brand recognition, made by honestly bad writers, and forced to add in and remove detailed according to what their "marketing experts" thought was trending at the time, instead of giving the directors and designers freedom of creativity to make something actually good. That's what's happening with games too. Now they're made with money in mind, and the decisions are made by the people who put the money in there, not by the actual developers, and the people in charge rely on their marketing team to decide what's trendy. And what's most trendy in videogames? Graphics. Because now gaming has become a huge industry played by people of all ages from everywhere in the world, and the one thing everyone likes is graphics, not having a good experience. It's reaching a point where games are becoming more like movies with micro transactions where they remove the agency of the players. Think for instance booster packs, a micro transaction made with older people in mind who have disposable money and not a whole lot of time, who want to fast forward to the endgame without enjoying the journey (which is what games were actually made for), thus removing the player's agency and making it that much closer to a movie. It used to be the case that games were challenging experiences where you had to learn and improve your skills via actual effort in order to obtain the reward of actually being good in the game. Whereas now games appeal to instant gratification and stimulation removing as much of the effort and challenge (and thus fun) as possible. And since older people with disposable money who don't care to dish out money for boosters in order to obtain that instant gratification are the main source of income for these developers, games are becoming more and more optimized for that kind of experience rather than one of actual challenge, discovery, exploration, immersion and reward for that effort. But this is only true for the bigger titles out there (and not all for that matter) The devs just no longer count in that equation. The decisions are made by the owners of the company who only want to maximize income, not create an actual good and enjoyable product. On the other hand, good games still do exist in the form of indie titles, which more often than not need to be good in order to even have a chance against the bigger titles, and thus are made with actual passion, caring and love, to create a good product thst will stick with people. An excellent example of this is Factorio. They spent an immense amount of effort into making a game that's as good, and as well made as possible. The game feels extremely streamlined. The experience is filled with all kinds of quality of life shortcuts to make your life easier and remove any and all of the repetitive and boring aspects of the game (such as copy-pasting designs and configurations). They didn't rush the release, they took their time to make a great game and when they finally released, the game felt complete in an utterly satisfying way, and after the release they constantly kept publishing free updates, polishing any kinks the game still had, solving bugs, rebalancing if needed, and all that while working on a 2.0 version and a DLC as promising as it gets, and giving weekly detailed updates to their fans. It's developers like these who deserve all the money, and not bigger releases. Of course there are exceptions like Doom Eternal, another game where you can feel the love and passion in every bloody pulp that the enemies become. All in all, you should look for passion and not sheer money. Cause even an incomplete buggy mess of a game is more fun than a "complete" micro transaction riddled, forcibly online, battle pass bearing, bug filled rushed mess of a triple A game that will be advertised to the ends of the Earth.

@lenol0315

4 ай бұрын

Greed✡️

@datnillavondizzle

4 ай бұрын

Well fuggin stated friend!

@synkashi

4 ай бұрын

Thissss WELL SAID

@joshdaymusiced

4 ай бұрын

That’s why Baldur’s Gate 3 blows my mind. It is the only AAA RPG (or AAA game in general) in years that seems to have been made with real passion. Actually showing the dice rolls? Letting the player send party members away FOREVER after a disagreement? Letting them KILL party members before they join? Potentially locking players out of content over even small choices? These are RISKS that the money people would generally never allow. It’s also got the scope of a peak Bethesda game, and writing as detailed and personal as a peak BioWare game, and is more polished than either company has ever been able to achieve. This game is a miracle amidst modern gaming. It defies everything we have come to expect from big budget titles, and actually meets the hype it garnered like no game as done in decades.

@norielgames4765

4 ай бұрын

@@joshdaymusiced when devs work with passion, it shows. Plus, it makes sense. Would you be passionate about a project you didn't come up with, a project you were TOLD to work on whether you like it or not? I mean some people might be passionate about working on such a project, if it's something that really resonates with them, but I'm willing to bet most of us wouldn't like that!

One of my biggest issues with modern games is the big focus on accessibility and stuff like that. Games used to be made for people who liked whatever type of game it was, but now many games are made in an attempt to get and retain impatient players who are less interested. As an example, most racing games used to be about starting at the bottom and slowly working your way up to better cars and more money, but nowadays you're often given a starter car that should be a mid to late game car, and very little work is required to get the best cars, just so that impatient players won't quit too early. Edit: To be more specific, i don't mind the kind of accessibility that gives basic access to more people, like color, sound, font, difficulty, controller settings ect. What i have a problem with is when all of the in game content is easily accessible early or even from the start of the game, as opposed to being locked behind game progression. I want there to be something to work towards, and for my progression to be rewarded with access to more and better content.

@Lizards_Lounge

4 ай бұрын

True, EVERYTHING is nerfed now.. I in last few years went back and played games I played from 90s, and some I missed out on in a poor family in 80s.. and they ARE DAMN HARD compared to newer games.

@marcusclark1339

4 ай бұрын

yup, all "accessibility" is - a rhetoric to push more people to run into predatory monetization tactics in big games and to conform to the social agenda in games - hence the ones pushing it the most being ESG allied companies (companies like Sweet Baby) - the more people that play their games the more they can preach to them

@jbway86

4 ай бұрын

That is why I haven't both enjoyed and played a racing game since Project Gotham Racing 1/2 on DC and Xbox.

@crestofhonor2349

4 ай бұрын

@@Lizards_Lounge A lot of NES games were made hard just for the sake of being hard. The renting of games that was popular in the US purposefully made games difficult so you couldn't beat them in one renting period and were forced to pay more if you wanted to keep playing. I wouldn't really call that a good form of game design.

@Left4JokerRPG

4 ай бұрын

Games were never so expensive to create, ever. Look at the numbers they need to sell to get any profit. That's why nowadays things are always targeted at very large audiences and will do anything to get more people to play.

You missed one critical thing: Budget and scope. AAA games now cost so much and take so long to develop that they CANNOT take the same risks they used to. Not only that but huge AAA games that do come out now are much fewer and far between than they used to be. (think GTA/Elder scrolls/Diablo) Also there is the fact dev teams can be MUCH larger now than you needed in say the early 2000's. It all makes it all the more difficult to get a cohesive and deeply personal game.

Im 37. I feel like the constant hype train for new games with gaming journalism contributes to our brain rot. We used to just have Nintendo Power Magazine, which was once a month and was as much about guides as it was about hype. The only way to sell a game was with marketing or with demos. Remember the N64 or PS1 kiosk in box stores like walmart/target? That was my primary deciding factor as to buy a game or not. Did I have fun playing it for 5 minutes in Walmart, while a kid behind me wanted a turn? We've always had a enourmous abundance of games to choose from. The key was finding what games you personally thought were fun. Of all the dozens or even hundreds of games I've played over the past decade only 5 were fun to the same standard of fun I used to have 20 years ago. A lot of wasted time and money could have been avoided if I had a casual demo to play first, before I even have the option to get a pre-order.

I agree with you! The issue with different playstyles is quite easy to work around. Have a "survival" or "explorer" setting where you can turn off all the mission aids and so forth. Then those who want to be guided can, and vice versa. But Yes, engaging and original stories is what is missing for me with modern games. I want to get sucked in and go "Holy sh*t is it already 2am?" That rarely happens nowadays.

@Sal-zs1ob

4 ай бұрын

That sums it up perfectly. The “is it already 2am?” Feeling

@swinnyuk6584

4 ай бұрын

I don’t agree that it is so simple, respectfully. I think that a game designed with guides in mind is fundamentally different in result from a game that, from the start, was designed without the guides in mind. In such a case, it is the game design/level design itself that guides you, not the HUD. You could argue, then, that using the HUD rather than designing a game that seamlessly guides the player is a lazy shortcut.

@tbotalpha8133

4 ай бұрын

@@swinnyuk6584 Yes, this. In Morrowind your quest instructions include directions on how to find your next objective, often involving trekking out into the wilderness and navigating by landmarks in the environment. The instructions weren't always entirely clear, but they gave you far more than any of the games that followed. With Oblivion and Skyrim, and even Fallout 3 and 4, Bethesda knew that the player would always have a compass on their HUD to lead them directly to their objective. So they started to get a lot more lazy with their quest directions. Trying to find quest locations or objectives in those games without the compass is vastly harder than otherwise, because they were not designed with orienteering in mind. I would also point to The Legend of Zelda: Breath Of The Wild, which had a whole bunch of side-quests and environmental puzzles based around the player looking at the environment and at landmarks, and using that information to determine where a quest reward was. And that game recieved tons of praise for inviting its players to actually engage with their surroundings directly, instead of just following a HUD marker to their destination. In both cases - Morrowind and Breath of the Wild - the developers were confident in the player's ability to navigate without any hand-holding. Orienteering was part of the game's challenge. And they were okay with the player getting lost, or potentially missing content. Allowing players to use a minimized HUD needs more than just a toggle in an options menu. It needs to be baked into the design philosophy of the entire game.

@trustworthydan

3 ай бұрын

The "holy shit it's 2am" hits hard. I used to stay up till 4 or 5 am and wake up 8am. There's not been a game that's got me like that in a long time.. RE4 remake, but it's basically just an updated re release.

I feel that half of the audience here is gonna feel that "older games" are 2 years old and need a remaster and they're not gonna get the point

@acuteaura

4 ай бұрын

you're an elitest, we get it

@nanach6276

4 ай бұрын

@@acuteaura haha! Thanks for proving me right:)

@gu3282

3 ай бұрын

​@acuteaura yes 🗿

@Justforvisit

2 ай бұрын

"The Last of Us Part II" has entered the chat

@Hughesburner

2 ай бұрын

Playing Fallout NV and loving it right now, finished Borderlands 2 before that. I don't really care if something gets remastered...as long as it plays with bugs.

I vibe so much with this. Whenever possible i always try to turn as much as the HUD as I can because i was sick of constantly looking at waypoints and arrows and reading lists and lists of stuff plastered all over the screen and not even looking at the game

i've been playing a lot of older titles recently and that condensed feeling is really nice. there's always a dungeon or smth right around you in MW. there's always a briefcase of blood diamonds half a km away in FC2. Half Life's story beats are unending and the level designs themselves are an adventure. it just feels good to play games that respect your time and hardware space.

I also do not have as much time for gaming as I used to, but this encourages me to be even more critical of AAA games, not less. I would never dream of wasting my limited time with any Ubisoft game or spend a lot of money on broken games as release. Indie games are where the future is.

@trustworthydan

3 ай бұрын

I disagree that indie games are the future, sure indie developers have freedom, but their games get over looked easily. The limited time thing I do agree with. I'm not going to spend my money, or time on a pos game that doesn't even work right on launch day.

@1God1Fury

2 ай бұрын

@@trustworthydan not working on launch day? That seem more common or no different in AAA. What's your point?

Maybe with big AAA studios it's like with old rock stars. At some point they just keep doing meh stuff that has a bit of that flavour of theirs that once made their few albums in the 70s blow up and now they're just getting by

@skaruts

4 ай бұрын

I'd say it's like an old band that's still recording albums, but none of the original artists and producers are involved anymore, and it just became a brand with an executive board, with none of the flavor it once had, with absurd production costs that cause extreme risk aversion, and with a disconnect between executives and artists and consumers.

@Skumtomten1

3 ай бұрын

This is actually a very good analogy.

@lukaskolisek2208

2 ай бұрын

Yeah, modern versions of legacy studios are basically Sepultura.

This video hits hard, man. Especially with Ezio's Family playing in the background.

It seems the only games that have any long term play value are the ones that people are inspired by enough to make content for. I may just be an older gamer, but back in the late 90s/early 2000s, I could spend years on a game just because of community added content- levels, mods, player run tournaments or random lobbies hosted by clans/groups started by gamers getting together and starting beef with other groups of gamers. One thing that I've noticed is as the games got more modernized, particularly around the time of Xbox live, more control was taken from the player that once had to figure out how to connect to an online lobby, find extra content and learn how to add it-- in a few short years, everything from playing a multiplayer match to all the extra content you could add to your game became streamlined. Everything has a price tag on it now and is a narrowly controlled experience. Social experiences in these games have pretty much boiled down to lobbies of random people, seems rare to find familiar faces to form alliances and rivalries with. It's kind of sad when these days Elder Scrolls is still relevant because Skyrim has been modded to relevance by people who haven't found a game worth their time and effort. It's a time when people who make video games don't really care about making a fun game, and people are so starved for their next fix that they'll buy anything.

Most games today are wide as an ocean but shallow as a puddle. As someone who started gaming in the nineties playing fallout, baldurs gate, morrowind i completely agree. Also ac black flag was the high point and the only one i finished. But luckily some gamers start to realize this, with bg3 and elden ring being extremely successful, while live service games die left and right

@crestofhonor2349

4 ай бұрын

There have always been lots of crap and good stuff. I don't think anything has changed besides gamers tastes changing. After all we were the ones who supported this crap in the first place making it financially successful to get to the point it is now. Now that it's failing for many companies things will change

@AlbinoMutant

4 ай бұрын

Oh, Elden Ring. Elden Ring is a giant stone in the shoe of the entire industry. A game that is so player unfriendly, it's almost a novelty. Like, what am I supposed to do next? There's no mini map, no quest log, no objectives. That guy over there kills me right away, that guy behind there kills me right away, I go down here I die right away, I go over here I die, every direction is death. There's nowhere to go that doesn't kill me. So at that point, the casual or lazy gamer will say, ugh, I want my money back. But, the player that Elden Ring is made for has character and will grow and say, ok, how do I do this? And with persistence and planning discovers not only is it doable, it's incredibly fun and satisfying to accomplish what was impossible just 1 hour (or 3 or 8 hours) before. The outright shock of Elden Ring is that there are millions more of this latter kind of player than anyone thought. The industry is still processing it.

@FordHoard

3 ай бұрын

@@AlbinoMutant I've found Morrowind to be tougher than Elden Ring or any other souls game. And I've never even beat a souls game, but got pretty far. Just always gave up on them because I don't feel like I'm getting any better weapons or armor.

@AlbinoMutant

3 ай бұрын

​@@FordHoard Elden Ring isn't really tough once you get the hang of it. My point is it's just player unfriendly. There's very little guidance. I mean, every RPG has a quest log, but not Elden Ring. You just have to remember what items you have and who might have wanted them and where you saw certain things and why you might want to go back there, etc. Armor doesn't matter a whole lot in Elden Ring. And literally every weapon you find can be used to beat the game with the right build and upgrades. I used a sword I found an hour into the game to get me 90% through the content. It took tons of upgrades and experimentation with different abilities, but most of the weapons in Elden Ring that aren't unique are like that. You can find and use powerful unique weapons, but they can't be customized like regular weapons and in many cases are less useful because of that.

I recently played Morrowind and ACCIDENTALY played it for an hour just because how engaging the exploration is. I never played it on release. Old games are simply better desighned.

@zuiop9993

4 ай бұрын

Well, the game Morrwind is intersting to explore, but it's conversation system is dogshit. That killed my immersion so quickly I couldn't play that title for more than 10 hours until I quit. Just wanted to point out, that even highly regarded older titles are often weird in their design. Games have figured out certain genre conventions for a reason. For people who have experienced a lot of games that can be frustrating. I personally always think the first few hours of a Ubisoft formula game: "That's great, why don't I play these kind of games more often." And then I see the world with collectibles, meaningless shit to distract you, huge but samey.... and then, after 15-20 hours, I stop playing and feel disappointed. Back in the day genre conventions were still evolving and needed to adjust to new technology. Especially when 3D games (neither 3D with the glasses nor 3D as in early titles, I mean polygonal Models) became standard, a lot of games tried to do interesting things with the technology. These days formulas have been found that most people enjoy. I even enjoyed many of them until I got overexposed to them. I acutally play old GOG games. They often have ridiculously high user scores (because most people buying and rating them, are people who already played the game and know they are going to enjoy them) and are extremely clunky and poorly designed. Yes, from time to time I find flawed gems, that I enjoy very much. But can we please stop pretending that old games were so much better? I always get the vibe that people who say shit like that, have one or two specific games, they played in their childhood, in their mind and don't remember all the other shit that got released. If I could make an experiment, I would force all the people who agree that old games were sooo much better designed to play both Gothic and Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines. Not just because they are among my favourite games, but also because they have huge fanbases, that to this day talk about these games as if they were the pinnacle of design. Most people would hate playing them much more than playing a similar new title of the same genre (RPG). Yes, there will be people who absolutely love them. But I will force those people to play Age of Empires 1 and then Age of Empires 4 (RTS). Most people would enjoy the newer title much more. That doesn't mean that those titles aren't worth playing or that their weirdness can't be enjoyable for some people. But that's not the average experience people would have. There are also sooo many indy games that are much more willing to try new things and sometimes deliberately dismiss genre conventions. The average person will like these games less, but if you are just the right person for this type of game, you will love it more than any AAA game. That's basically the same as with those older titles. A good indy game has more character, more to like, but also more to hate. The great thing about modern gaming is that there are both things. High budget titles with conventional gameplay and weird indies that might just appeal to a very small group of people.

@KeyleeTamirian

3 ай бұрын

@@zuiop9993 What do yoy mean? Conversation system is good in Morrowind. I mean, you said "It's dogshit", but you didn't explain why. Imo it's good because you can ask anyone about almost anything. Basically, this conversation system is literally how i want to talk to everyone, and how i want everyone to answer to me. I ask direct questions, they give direct answers. It's even better than real life conversations.

@theodis8134

3 ай бұрын

@@KeyleeTamirian Because that makes NPCs feel more like wikis than people which isn't a very immersive way to tell a story. Which to be fair might not be what you're after. Like the other person I enjoyed exploring the game world. I had the map taped up on my wall and it was kind of cool to see interesting locations on the map and just journey there and see what was there in the game. I had zero connection to any of the NPCs or really any of the plot of the game.

@KeyleeTamirian

3 ай бұрын

@@theodis8134 A lot of them have their own unique dialogue options and responses. What is wrong to be able to ask "Who are you?" Anyone you meet, and hear them telling their race, work? Asking their opinions and so on? I have connections to some characters in that game.

@TG-vt7ue

2 ай бұрын

We need more games that are willing to go all out with the crazy plots and worldbuilding (and that are able to take it all seriously and execute it well), I think.

I think it really depends on the game, I played A Plague Tale Requiem last year and connected with it's story and characters more than I have for almost anything else. There is also a lot of passion in Indie games, which I believe are the future. Awesome vid btw!

You're right. So is true progress in humanity and culture.

The only games that feel magical now are indie games. Valheim. Deep rock. Battlebit. These make me feel like a kid again.

@Nesolepus

4 ай бұрын

I totally agree. Valheim, Enshrouded, VRising, Sun Haven and Stardew is where most of my gaming goes to nowadays.

@coachleif

4 ай бұрын

Valheim is an absolute banger

@maryhinge40

3 ай бұрын

Very true. I like Deep Rock and No Man's Sky

@jean-micheltanguay8664

3 ай бұрын

I’m with the Valheim crew ! What and epic game with and even more epic soundtrack. Stardew is an upgraded harvest moon, I love playing this game with my kids. GTA6 is a game I won’t play. I played GTA 1 and 2 and it was funny

@Agon1stt

3 ай бұрын

FOR ROCK AND STONE!!

I think what you're saying mostly applies to triple a devs. There are tons of amazing games coming out now that retain all those qualities you like, they're just made by indies.

I thinks that the graphic if use well can tell a story as much as the characters itself (especially as someone that is becoming a environmental artist for video game) one of the best exemple of it I can recall is the basement of the hospital in last of us 2. There almost no dialog form the character but every thing is here for you to understand what happens in the place. A guy handcuff to a hospital bed where is body is almost just mushrooms. And letter that the more you read it the more the orthography of the guy is bad and where you see that the guy was becoming slowly not itself. There a lot more but i don't want it to be too long. But you can clearly understand that the guy was one of the first infected and he did not know what was happening till the end, in is letter saying he ear scream outside... it show how unprepared the hospital where and how the chaos happens in the hospital when the infection begins without the character ever talking

Yep, the problem with modern gaming, is that the companies that made those older games, are the same companies now still making those older games, but "LOOK AT THE TREES!"

@joseluizlimaneto3080

4 ай бұрын

Gamefreak feels

@smurf7665

4 ай бұрын

It's not the same company All those developers are retired now

We totally talked about how Oblivion had great graphics.. Seems insane nowadays :D

@crestofhonor2349

4 ай бұрын

Oblivion wasn't that pretty of a game back when it came out. What oblivion impressed in was it's sheer scale of the world

@DenKulesteSomFins

2 ай бұрын

Nah, easy to see why people thought it was pretty. The art design is great

@BearfootBob

2 ай бұрын

@@crestofhonor2349 Oblivion required an above-average GPU at the time to run decently well, it was a lot like Starfield in that respect. I was constantly tweaking settings to get Oblivion to run and look good, and no matter what I did, the endgame was a slideshow.

@BearfootBob

2 ай бұрын

@@DenKulesteSomFins no CRPG had looked that good before, the lighting and environment was on a new level for a PC game experience at the time

I haven't ever been able to play the latest and greatest because I'm always generations behind regarding hardware. So I'm always stuck playing old games for the date. Currently I have a laptop that runs 2015 smoothly enough. This has made me realize the same point of this video, old games have so much charm and emotion that you can play for hours and completely forget your life, it's beautiful (please don't forget your lives, but you get my point)

I grew up with those games, like Morrowind, Fallout 1+2, Baldurs Gate and many more. We, or at least I, enjoyed their visual content just as much as the story. And a game like Morrowind blew my mind with its graphics just as modern games do today. I don't know if gamers today care more or less about graphics than we did, but it definetly was a great selling point. Gaming has evolved a lot since the first time Doom, Duke3D and others made it to the screen. You later had games like Quake II, Half - Life - which wouldn't exist without Quake - Unreal and many more that always pushed the bar further in what was visible on the screen. What maybe changed over time is the gaming industry becoming "bigger". Already 30 years ago there was a conversation about what would happen if gaming hit the main-stream as like movies did. If it would become a multi-billion dollar industry. And one concern was the "casualisation". The suits runing the show. The people that only throw money at projects and care about nothing else. And that was very different with a lot of the older games. Sure, there have been failures, very bugged and broken games as well. But many developers started companies, because they wanted to make something THEY would enjoy playing. Blizzard, Maxis, Bioware, Ion Storm. The Titans which created and defined whole genres. They wanted to either tell a great story with gameplay or deliver great gameplay to tell some story. But many companies today want nothing but profit. No matter what. Or how. Quality, content, creativity? That's secondary. And games like Diablo 4 or Starfield show this more than anything else.

I agree with the response to someone saying they don't have the time to play a lot so they want more hand holding built in to the game. I think having less time to play games means that it is more important I play games that don't give me a path or tell me what to do but let me find out for myself. IMO this creates a more unique experience in the shorter amount of time. Why would you only want to fill less available time with a more monotonous experience? It sacrifices the time you do have and gains nothing in the end.

@personalemail9329

4 ай бұрын

Because for people with limited time they are just looking at basic experience of the game. Spending hours after a tiring day of work feels like a frustrating chore. That's the reason why multilayer fps games became popular since people that are tired and have less time don't get frustrated because of small things. That's the reasoning coming from someone that has less time. Trial and error takes time people with limited time looking to relax don't have the luxury of.

@user-sl6gn1ss8p

4 ай бұрын

Not having as much time as made me gravitate towards more "concise games" - games which have an interesting idea / theme / mechanic to explore, do that, and then are over, instead of games where you can sink 500 hours doing not all that much new. (Competitive games are of course another story)

@Dalendrion

4 ай бұрын

Different people have different demands. Someone who does a lot of mindnumbing manual labour during the day may want to play a game where they can finally engage their brain. Someone who does a lot of trouble solving at work and is mentally exhausted, may just want to be taken for a ride without having to think much. Both are fine gaming experiences.

Vote with your wallet! Buy indie!

I was a PC gamer all through the 2000s and early 2010s. Loved Deus Ex, Morrowind, SWG, KOTOR, anything BioWare, RTCW, Quake 3, Jedi Knight/Academy, Undying. I moved to Nintendo Switch in 2017 for most games. Not many people mention how modern Nintendo still retained the spirit of gaming with the level design, focus on fun, creativity overcoming hardware limitations, etc.

That's why I'm looking for games like Talos Principle. Have you tried this one? The first game was magnificent, yet Talos Principle 2 is even better. I cried like a baby and it got me really thinking. The game is not only about solving puzzles, but also about philosophy, morality, history, humanity and what it means to be a human. Very deep, very bitter-sweet, absolute must-play.

I didn't watched a video yet, but I want to say after playing modern games where devs hold your hand the whole game telling you what do to etc. I was dumbstucked when I started playing Fallout: New Vegas. This game is a whole new dimension of gaming, quest that require you to think by yourself to finish them not some "follow the dots on the map" and this well crafted map with story and more puzzle to solve on every corner to uncover said stories. I regret not playing NV earlier and if you also didn't play it you won't be disappointed

@flamerose3833

4 ай бұрын

Oh yes! If you enjoyed NV, go for Fallout 3 as well - don't mind what people say about it and it being Bethesda, it's still a worthy Fallout game. And of course the greatness that are Fallout 1 and 2 if you don't mind the 2D turn based style. These games are such quality and so beloved, that they're practically endless due to the huge modding community that is creating all manner of mods all the time. There's DLC sized mods, remasters and remakes already out and in the making. Also I highly recommend checking out Al ChestBreach - do yourself a favor and watch that hilarious, wholesome goof! He's been making Fallout content for more than a decade.

@Rockmanbalboa

4 ай бұрын

@@flamerose3833 hapy to see more people talk good about fallout 3, also don't forget ttw its a whole new experience.

@flamerose3833

4 ай бұрын

@@Rockmanbalboa Indeed. I'm most excited for Fallout London.

@flamerose3833

4 ай бұрын

@@elquetefaka5555 I'm not sure, but some voices are definitely shared. It was released in 2008, and Skyrim in 2011. That sucks... well, at least you got Qui-Gon Jinn in there 😆 If you can't deal with that, you can always remove voices I guess. The original games are text, for the most part. Otherwise, try and be patient and maybe you'll get used to it. It's a whole different world that has nothing to do with TES. Watching movies is the same - shared actors. Edit - Also if you mean Fallout in general, then keep in mind New Vegas is made by Obsidian, not Bethesda. That was back then, mainly the original crew from Black Isle studios that made F1 and F2. That should mean different voices.

@trustworthydan

3 ай бұрын

In modern games I find myself staring at a minimap going from point A to point B more than actually being immersed in the world and exploring.

thanks for this you just convinced me to add a new sidequest to my game.

"All we're saying is, GIVE OLD VIDEO GAMES A CHANCE!"

Anyone know what the music is that's playing around 9:10 it sounds familiar but I can't place it?

@NARCO.2210

4 ай бұрын

When the Morning Light Shines In - by Dan Romer from Far Cry 5

@shadesofred66

4 ай бұрын

Ahhh, thanks. It was driving me crazy. Not my favorite Far Cry but it was pretty good.@@NARCO.2210

@thelastpersononearth9765

3 ай бұрын

​@@NARCO.2210Fc5 had excellent music

Thank you for wishing me an amazing day. I wish the same for you!

I like the soundtrack in Chapter V, could you tell me name of this song?

i need to know which song is at 9:18 i cant remember where it came from

we used to get GTA games and other major franchise games almost every single year. Now games take ten years or even more to come out.

@rustknuckleirongut8107

4 ай бұрын

One single time you got a new GTA game the year after another(GTA III and GTA: Vice City). Even when GTA was a 2D game that you could make with a 7 people dev team it took 2 years between number one, number 2 and GTA III. You have to have some understanding of why games take longer now? Right? You do understand that if you have a game map that is 1x1 and you make one that is 2x2, the 2x2 map is not double the size, it is quadruple the size. And then you have game details you need to add to stay in the forefront of games that mean the cost and manpower required to make a AAA game has grown by orders of magnitude since the days when you could make and release a AAA for just a few million.

@purefoldnz3070

4 ай бұрын

@@rustknuckleirongut8107 yes but ten years between games is just stupid, its all based on greed not technology. Games with more limited scope can be produced more quickly thats why the early 2000s were a golden age of gaming. Also look at GTA 4 which is in many ways is more advanced than 5 and was made in the space of three years.

@dudemp4

4 ай бұрын

​@@purefoldnz3070 the problem with the "ten years" argument is that the fact that rdr2 even exists in the first place

@zainmalik9666

4 ай бұрын

This argument is so dumb when you apply the slightest bit of critical thinking. If you’re implying laziness then you’re lost.

@zainmalik9666

4 ай бұрын

@@purefoldnz3070the 10 year argument makes no sense. Imagine if they announce Bully 2 for 2026. Are you really gonna say it took them 20 years to make bully 2? They have other franchises.

The key is to stop being such a child and stop preordering all low effort media just like with movies. I pride myself on never having preordered anything and not watching new media which fails to impress and yet costs a lot. I'm not doing this because I'm an old fart but because the product should be made for discerning customers which seem to stop existing at least when it comes to the entertainment industry in the last 10-15 years.

@crestofhonor2349

4 ай бұрын

I haven't preordered a game I don't have the absolute most faith ever. Most games I just don't trust to pre order unless it's from specific companies

I recently starting playing fable 2 for the first time, and it's been a absolute delight. There's some real oldies but goodies out there for sure.

You deserve more subs, great video ⚔

I love the perspective!!

The great thing about Witcher 3 is that it is combining both options - markers on map telling you where each city is with road signs pointing towards them with a ton of map marks all over the open world making exploration revarding and interesting and fullfilling because you did know where to go but you never did know what you will find. And you were sure that you 100% the area thanks to checking and clearing all map markers.

@CITYZEN50

3 ай бұрын

Having map markers all over the map doesn't make exploration good, if anything it just makes it lazy. Why do you think people are surprised when they find new weapons/gear that they've never seen before in their 500 hours of playing skyrim? it's because the game's map encourages you to find stuff on your own without the help of a stupid marker on the map and it makes the whole thing all the more rewarding. Or another example being elden ring, where you could miss out on like 40% of the content in the game if you don't go out of your way for exploring..do you think finding the underground cities in elden ring would've been any fun if it was a map marker? no it won't, it's only fun because we found it ourselves without the game helping you. Witcher 3 is probably one of the worst games in terms of exploration because all your doing is following the mini map dotted lines to reach your desired destination, that isn't exploration, that's called mindlessly following a yellow trail because the game said so.

@user-hm5dt2bd5q

3 ай бұрын

@@CITYZEN50 For me Skyrim is boring just like all Bethesda games. A lot of empty spaces sometimes a few useless enemies with their useless weapons etc.

@CITYZEN50

3 ай бұрын

@@user-hm5dt2bd5q Atleast those empty spaces have many random encounters that are fun to see within them, in witcher 3 you've got similar boring empty spaces with no random encounters or anything in there..probably the reason why 90% of the witcher fanbase uses fast travel to go from point a to b in comparison with skyrim players not even using their horse to get from point a to b. Exploration in witcher 3 is in no way better than the exploration in skyrim, Bethesda has always been the king at creating open worlds that are fun to explore (minus starfield lol) so much so that even after a decade people are finding weapons that they never saw in the game before, you simply can't see that kind of stuff in witcher 3, its because witcher's world is cluttered with useless treasure chests, garbage bandit camps and boring monster nests, its so uninspired.

@user-hm5dt2bd5q

3 ай бұрын

@N50 I played all Bethesda games - each one for 10-20 hours and not a single one of them was fun in any way for me. I think Witcher is one of the few open world games that I enjoyed. I preffer isometric RPGs than Bethesda big empty boring words.

@CITYZEN50

3 ай бұрын

@@user-hm5dt2bd5qYou can have an opinion but calling Bethesda's open worlds big boring empty worlds while praising cdpr's garbage copy pasted shit just makes you look stupid.

Modern games, old games. Every era has games with great story, bad story or no story at all. I'm gaming since PONG (getting old uh...) and I still find modern games with great stories. It's just more difficult to find one, because there is a gazillion new games every year. Red dead redemption 2 is just 4 years old and man it has an incredible plot that keeps you glued to the chair since the first second.

I know I will ask super different question hahabut what is that music in Chapter V till the ened? It is so beautiful! Thanks mate, interesting video btw!

Elden Ring had a franchise before it. Even George R. R. Martin said that it was going to be a sequel of Dark Souls. But I agree with your theme. We should go back to playing older games to understand what is missing in current generations. I love the indie gaming sphere still because it has a lot of what we loved in old games. I can't stop saying enough of this. But whoever never played Hades, give it a try. The developers studied SO MUCH of Greek Mythology. It is amazing just how much compelling narrative there is on that game. I recommend watching documentaries about the Mythology in Hades to get a notion on how deep they went.

Just play indie games. There are so many amazing indie games out there. Ignore the AAA market, especially Bethesda, Blizzard, EA and Ubisoft. CD Projekt Red still make great games, even though they botched the Cyberpunk release. But now, the game is actually amazing. Best modern open world game imo, even though it comes with some of the issues you mentioned. It still is an insane achievement from a world design perspective. Night City is the most amazing virtual environment I've ever explored. FromSoft basically only remakes Dark Souls over and over again, but the formula is still great. Elden Ring was a joy to explore, finding stuff was actually a central part of the experience. You get rewarded for paying attention. Meanwhile, modern AC games are cluttered with bullshit map markers and UI elements.

@adolfhipsteryolocaust3443

4 ай бұрын

From software doesn't remake dark souls over and over again

Great video but your point on graphics is wild lol I take it you didn’t grow up in the 90s. Playing Mario 64 for the first time blew my mind. We all wondered how graphics could get any better than that. The correlation between story and graphics is either coincidental or for another reason from the one you mentioned

Excellent points, sir, fully agree. I remember the good old days with gameplay and immersion. Diablo 2. Medal of Honor. Need for Speed 2 SE and 3 Hot Pursuit. Counterstrike 1.6. Thief. Half Life. Hidden and Dangerous. And what even about the physical LAN-parties? The "gameplay", that's what's missing and you nail down why.

5:40 HUH? AC2 original had like 3 FULL CHAPTERS missing that they added later as DLC

@thorodinson292

4 ай бұрын

Wait for real?

@kanadashyuugo873

4 ай бұрын

@@thorodinson292 Yep. It's included in the Ezio Collection and I can't quite recall WHICH chapters, but I clearly remember at one point Shaun and Rebecca going "well these memories are corrupted and we will restore them later" and they just skip like 5 years of Ezio's life

@thorodinson292

4 ай бұрын

@@kanadashyuugo873 nah, that's foul.

The graphics were always a very central aspect - I think you outed yourself as a young gamer there. 😅 I think the difference to back then are mostly the distribution channels, and the management of gaming companies focusing on assured financial success. Distribution: Back then, there were magazines that would get the games early and _they_ would tell us whether or not they were good. Today: games are promoted to high res personal computer monitors and only need to generate beautiful 5-Second-Shots of landscape (we want no spoilers, right?) - and I think streamers are part of the issue. (And yes, as you said, pre-order is a curse to game quality imho.) Guaranteed success: this is the same in movie industry these days. They will rather make part 16 of an existing franchise, using a name that guarantees not a hit, but revenue X. They won't risk huge sums of money on something new. In games, series have always been a good thing (unlike in movies!). But new series should come with new ideas, an inner character of their own. But no risk, better calculated investment - revenue.

@gvigary1

4 ай бұрын

I see your point (and I can remember being excited to upgrade from VGA to SVGA), but for me the big difference is that the amount of effort it is now possible (and often necessary) to put into the graphics has grown exponentially, while our ability to invent captivating stories and engaging new mechanics hasn't moved on in the same way, and isn't really any easier with a massive team.

Good video. Reminds me of the "really? 20 year old games on your new gaming PC" meme. Also now I have to listen to some FC5 tracks again dang it

Just returned to UnReal World after a decade or two and it still holds up as one of my favourite games of all time. No story, 90s graphics but detailed mechanics and some fun systems to play with. Many studios have fallen into a variation of the GranTurismo problem - turning a fun game into some artsy graphics project with no soul or personality but the shiny buttons and swish cutscenes..

That is very true. They had to give you a very good reason to be entertained by a 16x16 pixels character with zero animations - talking Castle of the Winds here.

This is probably why I fell in love with the AVN genre (Adult Visual Novel). It checks off every mark you mentioned. Emotional attachment? One AVN made me cry for like 10 minutes non-stop. If anything, they're maybe a little too good at this, as real life feels dull in comparison. Story? That's the main focus of all great AVNs (or just VNs in general). They're basically books with extra steps. Graphics? While absolutely gorgeous in some newer AVNs, it's never the main focus or selling point. It's there to enhance the story and immersion, not to show off technical skill. Franchise? Nope, usually made by indie devs and every game is an original story or a vaguely connected prequel at most. Lack of inovation? While there is a shared base for all AVNs, every one of them manages to be unique not only in story but in worldbuilding, game mechanics and overall feel too.

One of the important issues with modern gaming is all the "looting" that is in the game, and re-use of assets. I have played so many story driven games with looting and pointless side quests, that by the time i get from one mission to the next, i have completely forgotten what the mission even was. And all the modern games seem so similar, because the companies have already built the assets and maps, and now just re-use the previous game as a template.

Every 2 or 3 years I get a retro phase, and which each passing year "retro" becomes a larger category. My last retro phase was at the end of last year, after I found out how easy it has become to mod a PsVita and did and just indulged in all the things I could play on it now. I replayed GTA San Andreas, GTA 3 and Vice City, Midnight Club 3, Burnout Legends, SSX On Tour, Tony Hawks Underground 2 Remix and Project 8, Jak 1-3, Ratchet & Clank Collection, Sly Cooper Series, Wipeout Pure and Pulse, Max Payne, Bully, The Warriors, Manhunt 2, Pokemon Emerald, MGS HD Collection, even Heros of Might and Magic 3 and the obligatory Mario 64 which now runs at a perfect 60FPS thanks to a native PsVita port by the community. I feel like handhelds are perfect retro machines, because the smaller screens help with the visuals and the pick up and play nature lends itself well to leisurely replaying some old classics. I would describe myself as a graphics whore, but I still took many dozen screenshots of the 15-20 year old games because I thought they looked stunning on the Vitas little OLED. Also shout out to the modding community which unlocked native resolution for PSP games on Vita, which works perfectly for Wipeout and makes them look absolutely incredible. My few take aways from that retro binge: - PSP racing games are incredible. Like, better than almost any racing game released in the past 10 years. Just pure fun and tons of content, no bullshit. - EA Sports Big Games were crazy fun - GTA satire holds up incredibly well and the AI in these open worlds was more advanced than what we see in most open worlds today. (ffs I saw people run around with stolen CRT TVs when riots broke out towards the end of San Andreas) - Ps2 era Jump'nRuns are tough but have a charm that is hard to find today - Rockstar did some very cool stuff besides GTA in Max Payne, Bully, Manhunt and The Warriors - Gameboy era Pokemon games scratch my nostalgia itch the best. I had a good time. Probably the best gaming time since Elden Ring.

The problem with modern games is that they can have photorealistic environments, but the physics and realism is still at the level of 20 years ago. A game with even the best graphics loses all its charm when you suddenly find that the character you are playing is suddenly able to jump 3 metres above the ground without any effort, or falls from a height of several metres without any injury. And that's what's annoying about today's games, especially if they're advertised as Survival. That's why games that put an emphasis on realism are considered to be more interesting. One example is RDR2 - the game is already 6 years old, but it still has no competitors when it comes to realism and physics in the presented world. This is why such a game will not get old for a long time, even if more graphically advanced games will be developed in future.

The major problems are this: games used to be made by gamers. Who wanted to play a game that didnt exist so they made it themselfs. And just capitalism.

@CG-yf4qi

Күн бұрын

Exactly

Back in the day around the mid 2000s a lot of games were improving their physics engines which made games better, then all of a sudden they just gave up on that, scaled the physics back and said that's good enough, and gaming has suffered. And also back then, online gaming seemed like a great idea, I mean the version of it at the time was, then micro transactions and no couch multiplayer reared their ugly heads. Graphics have always been a priority, but I think we've gone too far with those now. Low poly games look great in high resolution, I think they look more fun than super realism, maybe because they don't lie about the games depth. "Here's a triangle, take it or leave it"

A game with RDR2 graphics but Skyrim Gameplay or Battlefront 2 (2005) with the newer EA 2015 graphics, the gameplay was already really good, the stories and quests etc. All we want is an update to the graphics and less bugs with games like AC4 remake but they risk ruining it like film remakes by changing too much of what is already perfect.

[Watches the first two seconds and sees 'Morrowind'] This guy knows what's up.

Wow great video ! (brought to me by chance by the KZread algorithm XD) I played all the games featured in the video and they make an excellent example for each argument presented. I also noticed how old games had a different style and today most game have the same "realistic" design. Chapter four was particularly interesting, I always wondered why most of my friends bought any new, uninspired game that got mainstream attention while I continued to play old (but still awesome) games. This made me consider that all the hate that some studios are getting these days (Bethesda um...) is not as justified as it seems given that we will buy everything they make anyway. The video game public demands that studios put more effort into their development while they make no effort to invest in the game and the story. Will I suggest that those around me think more about the influence of their gaming habits ? No, because no one cares, but I'm going to suggest they watch this video ; )

@crestofhonor2349

4 ай бұрын

It's not all the same "realistic" design. There is a ton of variety but styles change. The 7th gen was even more homogenous than what we have currently in terms of visual design

We are so much vulnerable to marketing strategies than ever, add to the fact that every youtuber in the world is wants to reach trends with new games.

This is why there are multiple roles. The cinematic director and screenwriters tell the story, and the developers create the visuals to bring that story to life.

I find it really funny that people pre-order games. What the hell are they afraid of, a digital copy of a game going out of stock?! The way I see it, this is the most stupid thing people do in buying games and they are the majority. People have turned themselves into zombies worshiping shitty companies, there is no hope for the gaming industry.

@Richard-mo1nc

4 ай бұрын

That's probably the silliest thing I've heard or seen in pre-ordering games. I agree there isn't the need to be all that afraid of "limited inventory". Like digital copy is going to run "out of stock?" was pretty funny said by you (haha!). Well, I don't think it's the most stupid thing many people have done. I think modern gaming of current era has consumers themselves disappointing or exploiting each other, rather than the game company being more involved in promoting their sales. I find it confounding to see even game reviewers and media influencers speaking in a way that hype their audience to try to sell a company's game. It's like they're pretending to be cars salesmen with no affiliation to the company and its games. They're content enough to have people unwittingly believe their words, while omitting notable facts, only to have the consumer feel disappointed after purchasing and experiencing the game because they felt convinced by the reviewer's enthusiastic words. We've lost our integrity if we feel unsympathetic to exploiting other people's wallet to help put money in game company pockets without regards whether the product is produced of good or bad quality.

@ekimolaos

4 ай бұрын

@@Richard-mo1nc the thing is, pre-ordering is way more severe than you think. You make great points, but think about this. Why would a company care to provide you with a good product, if they already got your money before even releasing said product? That's what pre-ordering does. Why do you think Ubisoft is as big as it is while providing nothing of substance? They get the money anyways, that's why. Why give effort in order to get rewarded for it when you get the reward before even thinking of giving effort? As long as people pre-order things are gonna get worse.

@Richard-mo1nc

4 ай бұрын

@@ekimolaos I don't think it is going away or going to get any better. Even with the promotional or additional content and merchandise that they include with pre-ordering to entice you to pay for supposedly "premium tier package" is pretty ordinary and not as exclusive as they promised. They really trying to make unquestioning fans pay more money. You've reminded me a lesson my father once taught me caution in spending money similar to pre-ordering. Why should I reward/pay them only to have to wait months of intermediate processing and approvals when I should be able to have it now or reasonably sooner? The product is probably waiting in the warehouse ready to be shipped. So, what can we do? Gaming companies are ready to capitalize on testing how loyal their consumer fans are ready to purchase their products. With social media, it has made it easier to connect like-minded people to be in a group of unwavering loyalty even to a fault.

@damndanieI

3 ай бұрын

Sadly, I have friends who preorder games yearly. At first I thought it's the hype for the game and their impatience because they have nothing else to play. But then when I saw that they still continue preordering even when the last preorder was a dissapoinment, I came to the conclusion that they are just fucking stupid

@ekimolaos

3 ай бұрын

@@damndanieI I never understood the reasoning. Why give money to someone without getting something in return for a long time when you can give them money when the product is actually available and, because it's digital, get it at the same second?

Strongly disagree. Yes, the older assassin's creeds had better stories, but those games were mighty impressive when it comes to graphics as well. I remember playing the first AC, I was blown away and it felt like the first true next gen experience on the Xbox 360.

@crestofhonor2349

4 ай бұрын

Yup. Every Assassin's creed tried to push forward graphics

@RaindancerAU

4 ай бұрын

Plenty of errors and issues in this video, including DLCs and you can tell this is being told by someone who was not there at the time.

@FordHoard

3 ай бұрын

The first game still looks great. The way the cutscenes were done was so cinematic and unique.

Kind of random, but Fable 2 was amazing, and I see people trash it and I don’t really understand. It was a big magical journey with a cool story, I was cracked out back then. I love older games, I still play Oblivion, Fallout 3, FONV, I don’t go much older than these games, graphics are too bad. Anyways, I too, miss the styles of older games. For me the peak was early 2000’s to mid 2010, graphics and gameplay were great and still hold up. Only been a couple gems since, Skyrim and W3, BOTW, TLOU. I replay all these games, at least once every year or two.

I think Far Cry 2 was a big part of laying the template of an open-world game in which you aren't seemingly connected to the protagonist. However, FC2 did it the right way. Little details such as your character's hands tell a visual story, and the game's atmosphere does an amazing job of sending this existential nihilistic message of how nothing you're doing really matters and that you're kind of all alone. Not to mention how the audio and visuals of the environment aids that, nature is bigger than you are. If you're going to have a silent protagonist, that's how it's done.

I personally don't really care if games innovate or not. Games are supposed to be fun, not technologically impressive. I expect the next games to improve on the flaws of the previous, but as long as the game is good then I don't care if the tech remains the same. Innovation is nice when it actually improves the experience, not so much when it's done just for the sake of doing it. The way I see it, when I really enjoy a game and I'm craving for more of it, if the next game is more of the same, then it's exactly what I'm craving. This is exactly what expansions used to do. They gave you more of the same, and everybody loved them. This is also exactly what happened with Thief 2. I noticed it was the same engine, plus a few improvements, and it made zero difference to me. In fact, I enjoyed it 100 times more than Thief 1. Same thing with HL2 and the episodics, and CoD 1 and 2, and maybe even Assassin's Creed 2 and Brotherhood. It always made zero difference to me. In contrast, my experience with Dungeon Keeper 2 was huge disappointment. It was a different game that threw all the essence of the first one out the window, and it also had really annoying bugs, iirc. In the face of all of that, I couldn't care less about the increase in graphical fidelity. The game wasn't really that bad, but... it was big disappointment nonetheless. If a game is a great game, then I don't care at all if the tech is the exact same as before. Also, when the tech remains the same, at least I know my PC can still run it.

@narco name of the music playing in the background please!

Amazing video, and it's one of the things why I haven't moved from ps3, aside from being collecting for the console, is that, before the PS3 era, developers wanted to give fin games, now they follow trends, and want to impress with graphics

Nice video. @NARCO.2210 Could you tell me please what music is playing @2:58 onward? Its such a nice track. Thanks in advance!

@bhavinmaru985

2 ай бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/eIeKqtprY6XfmLA.htmlsi=Hc2Tn6SyaN2X-Pz0

@anweshrwt850

2 ай бұрын

it's ezio's family from assassins creed 2 :)

Old games looked awesome when they came out. Even Morrowind. I still remember looking at the trailer where they showed raindrops on water and my jaw just dropped through the floor. I loved older games more because they weren't so bloated and every game didn't feel like the same. Now almost everything tries to be open world and just filled to the brim with pointless fodder

Playing that far cry 5 menu music around the part aboiut how you play games to relax is perfect.

Good game design stands the test of time. I play new games that meet those standards and also go back to old favorites that still delight me today.

I changed my view on this after the release of Dragon's Dogma 2. I've played Dragon's Dogma for 680 hours, i must have done the NG+ around 20 times. I've waited more than 10 years for Dragon's Dogma 2. I was ready to buy it, but i saw all it's microtransactions, freedom limitations and performance issues popping out seconds after launch. After that i started looking back at my old Dragon's Dogma that had no bugs, no microtransactions, no issues at all and remembered the time all games were like that. So i stepped back and decided to make a list of all the old games that are known legends and i should have played a long time ago. Started just recently but i'm liking it, they are all pretty much bugs-free, complete finished products by themselves, everything works as intended. I've forgotten how it feels to simply play a game that works and give you a complete experience without any holes.

I think the real core of the issue is that gaming, overall, became too big and too mainstream. And with the technology nowadays, you have giant corporations who want to nickel and dime the customer producing these massive titles that sometimes are worth more than a small country's GDP for a huge audience that can vary from a teenage boy to a middle aged woman. And that's not even factoring things like politics like the recent Sweet Baby Inc scandals. When you have something this big, you can't expect anything more than slop. Hollywood is the same, over 80 % of the stuff they make each year is worthless in terms of artistic value but it's a massive industry that has to keep going or it will die.

what was the track at the very end?