Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KingofstarrySkies]

OH GOD, THE FLASHBACKS

[MrRoboto75]

I hate that I can't just buy a game anymore.  Now I have to pay double what I did before, and I only get like half the game.  Where's the other half?  DLC.  Totaling to the price of the original game, or even more.

Now we have free-to-play games where constant grinding replaces actual content.  You can skip the grind non-game by just paying over what you would have if it didn't use this absurd modal.

[KingofstarrySkies]

Not all F2P games have that. TF2, for an example.

Many games can be 'Just Bought'. Half the game is an overstatement, in most cases.

[Sergarr]

Nonono, that's not what I meant.
I meant, are we gonna be rational and present sources, or just 'is not! Is too!'?

oh for fucks sake

Also, a request.
DEFINE
'MODERN'.

Any game which development started after 2006-2007 (around that time) counts as a modern game.

The issue: best modern games have failed to be superior (particularly in gameplay, as the key element) to the best old games, despite the increased budgets, increased total amount of knowledge about how gameplay works, and the increased amount of people working in the area.

Discuss how to solve that one.

Prove it, please. What do you consider the best modern games? And the best old games?

You and I both know that this statement is unprovable because different people will consider different games to be "best". Unless there's some objective way to measure the "quality of gameplay", this is unsolvable.

And I highly doubt you've only played games from before then.

Well I've played a little of the more modern games, like Starcraft 2 demo (which is really a miserable game in terms of actually adding new stuff over its predecessors), or Men of War (which is so unbelievable trashy that I at first didn't believe when I've saw that all missions in the game have had the same exact fucking structure.
Supreme Commander is somewhere on the edge, it being quite a great strategy that has unfortunately suffered through (apparently) great lack of actual funding and has a lot of trap choices (it allows building stuff that you absolutely cannot afford, thus allowing you to crash your economy if you're not watching the exact numbers).
Skyrim is somewhat fun, but its gameplay is atrociously boring, compared to like most other first-person RPGs that are not Morrowind.
Oh and there was Robocraft that's too, somewhat fun for a while, but it's literally the same mission repeated over and over and over on a few maps.

That's all modern games that I've played.

[KingofstarrySkies]

...
So you're saying they're all trash, yet you've barely played things from the Modern Era? That's...Nnnghhhh.

Aye, Blitz. Sources and the like are lovely and sexy and helpful.

[Cthulhu]

Nonono, that's not what I meant.
I meant, are we gonna be rational and present sources, or just 'is not! Is too!'?

oh for fucks sake

Also, a request.
DEFINE
'MODERN'.

Any game which development started after 2006-2007 (around that time) counts as a modern game.

The issue: best modern games have failed to be superior (particularly in gameplay, as the key element) to the best old games, despite the increased budgets, increased total amount of knowledge about how gameplay works, and the increased amount of people working in the area.

Discuss how to solve that one.

Prove it, please. What do you consider the best modern games? And the best old games?

You and I both know that this statement is unprovable because different people will consider different games to be "best". Unless there's some objective way to measure the "quality of gameplay", this is unsolvable.

And I highly doubt you've only played games from before then.

Well I've played a little of the more modern games, like Starcraft 2 demo (which is really a miserable game in terms of actually adding new stuff over its predecessors), or Men of War (which is so unbelievable trashy that I at first didn't believe when I've saw that all missions in the game have had the same exact fucking structure.
Supreme Commander is somewhere on the edge, it being quite a great strategy that has unfortunately suffered through (apparently) great lack of actual funding and has a lot of trap choices (it allows building stuff that you absolutely cannot afford, thus allowing you to crash your economy if you're not watching the exact numbers).
Skyrim is somewhat fun, but its gameplay is atrociously boring, compared to like most other first-person RPGs that are not Morrowind.
Oh and there was Robocraft that's too, somewhat fun for a while, but it's literally the same mission repeated over and over and over on a few maps.

That's all modern games that I've played.

It's not unsolvable, it's an opinion.  You're stating your opinion as fact.

What even is this thread?