Print

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

[Christes]

Well, I remember playing warcraft 2 not too long after it came out.  I was just a kid and terrible at it, but still.

[Jack A T]

I think the main problem with modern games is the rush to release them ASAP when they take far longer to make than games used to.

We now get either bad to mediocre games (almost everything), good but extremely buggy games (STALKER, for example), or, in those rare cases when the game can be released when actually good (extremely rare), we get good, non-buggy games (anything by Valve, most indie games).

[Christes]

And the primary complaint I've heard against valve is that they are too slow

[Calhoun]

And the primary complaint I've heard against valve is that they are too slow

Nah, They are just operate within the as-of-yet unexplained by physics Valve Time.

As far as they are concerned, everything they do is put out right on schedule. They just work on a different system, you know?

However, I've not played a Valve game I didn't love, So it's well worth the wait.

[Pistolero]

I think the vast majority of game reviews use an inherently flawed system that will always lead to score inflation anyway.

Finding a good reviewer or reviewers who use a method you trust to consider the things you find important in a game is obviously going to give you a better result than hitting metacritic for the lowest common denominator value. If you're deeply into games using innovative systems, you're better off finding somewhere that gives a lot of weight to systems innovation in their final score than finding the average of the one place that reviews according to what interests you and 101 reviewers that will all automatically give a 90+ to every 'oh-please-god-not-another-fucking-FPS' that innovates technologically. Shinier graphics, same old derivative gameplay, 95/100! A new approach to the tired old trope of deformable terrain, NINETY EIGHT FOR YOU, lets not mention that you forgot to make it useful to blow holes in the wall. Again. Except for that one place. With the thing.

That said, games are the same as ever. A few treasures amidst piles of trash. I have to admit I have a list of about twenty games that I enjoyed from the nineties, compared to about... five or ten that I have enjoyed from the last ten years, but that says more about my preferences than the quality of games being produced.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

Sure, you prefer quality games.

[Pathos]

I suspect that lots of games in the '90s were reviewed unnecessarily harshly, too. I mean, X-Com was given relatively low scores for bugs and graphical quality, whilst games these days can get anything under the radar for a 7/10 at the least. (That's generally the lowest most reviewers go in terms of rating, at least on big budget titles.)

[Zangi]

The average vendor trash is getting better, but they are still vendor trash.

Big budget more often then not disappoint from the hype machine. 
Though personally, even if I go in with abysmal expectations, some of them still disappoint.

The pokemon are still out there.  Gotta catch em all.

EDIT:

General intelligence improves with each generation isn't such a completely unbelievable concept. Education techniques and tools improve all the time, and people spend more time learning with each passing year.

Humanity as a whole?  It is a completely unbelievable concept...  But, in certain defined areas, yes, I can believe that.