I personally don't think that gaming is on the decline. What's happening is that gamers are comparing current mainstream games with older ones with no regard for the massive differences in scope and ambition. The industry has changed, the definition of a high budget game is not the same as it was 10 or 20 years ago and the games we loved back then still exist, people are simply looking for them in the wrong places. Don't expect a modern game that cost $300 million to make and is trying to appeal to the broadest audience possible to have the same design philosophy as a PS2 hit that cost 20 times less and was made for more dedicated gamers, that's the kind of experience you'll find among AA or indie games nowadays.
Yet Sony releases Returnal, a roguelite Metroid-like with the best TPS gameplay ever smashed with bullet hell shump and nobody cares. Do gamers really want good AAA games or just another narrative-centered slop?
When you still get enjoyment from 30 year old games and find brand new cutting edge games irritating….something isn’t right. The water still doesn’t do any more than what it did in wave race 30 years ago. The objects physics aren’t any better than on half life 2 decades ago. We have amazing textures amd lighting and artists spending time on stuff I’m going to look at for 5 seconds as I run past it. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a bit of a golden age in terms of objective quality of the top games. And the indie scene is probably better than it’s ever been. But on the whole.. when I pick up an old game, I don’t feel like I’m missing anything vs modern games.
@@lekudos I'd say quality of life improvements are a big reason to play modern games instead of old ones. And generally speaking, retro games tend to be rough around the edges. Also there's so much choice with indies nowadays... There are games about basically anything you can think of. I'm not sure games like "That Dragon, Cancer", "Papers, Please" or "Bury Me, My Love" existed in the 90s and if they did, they weren't as easy to find as they are now.
I love your analysis. I think it helped me reframe my view a bit on games. I do feel like a lot of titles these days are painfully "corpratized" (I dunno if that's actually a word) and it hurts to see what would've been a great idea for a game turn into what feels like an empty husk. That ended up dominating my viewpoint, but honestly for every corporate cash grab, there's 2-3 artistic, from the heart titles out there. We gotta reframe our train of thought to not focus so hard on the negative, especially in an environment where there are so many blue dots.
Great video man! Fully agree with everything here. It’s great to see someone putting thought in and not just using negativity to boost clicks, which sadly always works. keep it up! Earned yourself s sub!!😊😊
Starting with a 20 year-old flash video amused me, as I remember those days that many TH-cam commentators seem to have been children during. A lot of these "The Games Industry is COOKED!" videos look back on the Xbox 360 as a Golden Age of Gaming, and meanwhile my friends and I in or graduating College were lamenting the downward spiral of the industry. I've actually grown more optimistic, but my focus has also shifted. So your use of the different quadrants and psychology is quite apt. Twenty years ago, I was griping at every E3 event that featured a bunch of games that "nobody cares about" because they weren't relevant to me, personally. Now, even though I wasn't interested in everything shown off at The Game Awards, I came away feeling like it was an incredible show because it had plenty on offer. I've found that a lot of the people I know that disliked The Game Awards this year went in expecting and even intending to hate it, and rather than focus on the games that interested them, they focused on everything they personally feel is wrong with the industry. Heck, even to your point, you mentioned February's release schedule. My personal spreadsheet has an empty February for the most part, but January and March are comparatively stacked. However, that's in part due to follow-up releases from indie developers I'm following, and therein lies what I think is the issue for many: as you note, they're exclusively looking at the biggest publishers (usually Western), when in reality there are so many more studios making games of great quality. Unless you're a fan of grand/4X strategy games, in which case, yeah, Paradox is the dominant force and they're kind of on fire right now. Those guys have a right to complain.
Yeah man I’m 24 now and when I was a kid during the 2000’s the fun factor in games used to be the main focus. Now it’s the graphics, micro transactions, and finding a way milk as much money from loyal fans. Be careful what you spend your money on
You comment on rising expectations are true but your analysis is flawed. Fact is I am going to be more forgiving regardless of context to a person who has less tools to work with. In the past games were being constructed fully in assembly language or C+ at the best. Now developers have graphics engines that make the process a drag and click affair and the game not only take longer to make but are also buggy as hell. I don't mean push the game kind of bugs either like in the past, today games glitch on fully scripted cut scenes, that is unacceptable given the tool they have at their disposal. It is like comparing a regular 160 Lbs guy with a slingshot taking out 10 fit 250 Lbs guys in a straight face off in less than 10 seconds versus a guy with the entire US navel fleet under his command failing to level a small city over the course of a week. Yes the former has a few smaller task to undertake but he guy only had a slingshot and he was definitely weaker than his opponents. The latter had nukes at their disposal and could not level a weaker opponent over a weeks time. The reason why we are annoyed with modern game is because they take forever to make, are messy and we know the resource available to even independent devs today is immense.
Also, not all of the stuff released today would have been considered great 20 years ago, only visually impressive. For example the SEGA Model 3 board was at least 7 or 8 years ahead of modern tech in 1996. (at a time when tech was more than doubling in processing power every year) Virtua Fighter 3 was popular all of 3 weeks because of the insane graphics proposition at the time. After the wow fell off, people when back to Street Fighter Alpha, Killer Instinct, Mortal Kombat 3, X-men versus Street Fighter and Tekken. Graphics and spectacle only holds for so long, even when it is ahead of its time.
I personally don't think that gaming is on the decline. What's happening is that gamers are comparing current mainstream games with older ones with no regard for the massive differences in scope and ambition. The industry has changed, the definition of a high budget game is not the same as it was 10 or 20 years ago and the games we loved back then still exist, people are simply looking for them in the wrong places. Don't expect a modern game that cost $300 million to make and is trying to appeal to the broadest audience possible to have the same design philosophy as a PS2 hit that cost 20 times less and was made for more dedicated gamers, that's the kind of experience you'll find among AA or indie games nowadays.
Yet Sony releases Returnal, a roguelite Metroid-like with the best TPS gameplay ever smashed with bullet hell shump and nobody cares. Do gamers really want good AAA games or just another narrative-centered slop?
When you still get enjoyment from 30 year old games and find brand new cutting edge games irritating….something isn’t right. The water still doesn’t do any more than what it did in wave race 30 years ago. The objects physics aren’t any better than on half life 2 decades ago. We have amazing textures amd lighting and artists spending time on stuff I’m going to look at for 5 seconds as I run past it.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a bit of a golden age in terms of objective quality of the top games. And the indie scene is probably better than it’s ever been. But on the whole.. when I pick up an old game, I don’t feel like I’m missing anything vs modern games.
@@lekudos I'd say quality of life improvements are a big reason to play modern games instead of old ones. And generally speaking, retro games tend to be rough around the edges. Also there's so much choice with indies nowadays... There are games about basically anything you can think of. I'm not sure games like "That Dragon, Cancer", "Papers, Please" or "Bury Me, My Love" existed in the 90s and if they did, they weren't as easy to find as they are now.
I love your analysis. I think it helped me reframe my view a bit on games. I do feel like a lot of titles these days are painfully "corpratized" (I dunno if that's actually a word) and it hurts to see what would've been a great idea for a game turn into what feels like an empty husk. That ended up dominating my viewpoint, but honestly for every corporate cash grab, there's 2-3 artistic, from the heart titles out there. We gotta reframe our train of thought to not focus so hard on the negative, especially in an environment where there are so many blue dots.
Great video man! Fully agree with everything here. It’s great to see someone putting thought in and not just using negativity to boost clicks, which sadly always works. keep it up! Earned yourself s sub!!😊😊
@@Tobin423 Thanks for watching, I’m sick of the negativity too :)
What changed is : the creatives that put games on the map are gone and companies that owned their creations are still alive.
Starting with a 20 year-old flash video amused me, as I remember those days that many TH-cam commentators seem to have been children during. A lot of these "The Games Industry is COOKED!" videos look back on the Xbox 360 as a Golden Age of Gaming, and meanwhile my friends and I in or graduating College were lamenting the downward spiral of the industry. I've actually grown more optimistic, but my focus has also shifted.
So your use of the different quadrants and psychology is quite apt. Twenty years ago, I was griping at every E3 event that featured a bunch of games that "nobody cares about" because they weren't relevant to me, personally. Now, even though I wasn't interested in everything shown off at The Game Awards, I came away feeling like it was an incredible show because it had plenty on offer. I've found that a lot of the people I know that disliked The Game Awards this year went in expecting and even intending to hate it, and rather than focus on the games that interested them, they focused on everything they personally feel is wrong with the industry.
Heck, even to your point, you mentioned February's release schedule. My personal spreadsheet has an empty February for the most part, but January and March are comparatively stacked. However, that's in part due to follow-up releases from indie developers I'm following, and therein lies what I think is the issue for many: as you note, they're exclusively looking at the biggest publishers (usually Western), when in reality there are so many more studios making games of great quality.
Unless you're a fan of grand/4X strategy games, in which case, yeah, Paradox is the dominant force and they're kind of on fire right now. Those guys have a right to complain.
@@RamblePak64 Appreciate the thoughtful comment!
Yeah man I’m 24 now and when I was a kid during the 2000’s the fun factor in games used to be the main focus. Now it’s the graphics, micro transactions, and finding a way milk as much money from loyal fans. Be careful what you spend your money on
You comment on rising expectations are true but your analysis is flawed. Fact is I am going to be more forgiving regardless of context to a person who has less tools to work with. In the past games were being constructed fully in assembly language or C+ at the best. Now developers have graphics engines that make the process a drag and click affair and the game not only take longer to make but are also buggy as hell. I don't mean push the game kind of bugs either like in the past, today games glitch on fully scripted cut scenes, that is unacceptable given the tool they have at their disposal.
It is like comparing a regular 160 Lbs guy with a slingshot taking out 10 fit 250 Lbs guys in a straight face off in less than 10 seconds versus a guy with the entire US navel fleet under his command failing to level a small city over the course of a week. Yes the former has a few smaller task to undertake but he guy only had a slingshot and he was definitely weaker than his opponents. The latter had nukes at their disposal and could not level a weaker opponent over a weeks time. The reason why we are annoyed with modern game is because they take forever to make, are messy and we know the resource available to even independent devs today is immense.
Also, not all of the stuff released today would have been considered great 20 years ago, only visually impressive. For example the SEGA Model 3 board was at least 7 or 8 years ahead of modern tech in 1996. (at a time when tech was more than doubling in processing power every year) Virtua Fighter 3 was popular all of 3 weeks because of the insane graphics proposition at the time. After the wow fell off, people when back to Street Fighter Alpha, Killer Instinct, Mortal Kombat 3, X-men versus Street Fighter and Tekken. Graphics and spectacle only holds for so long, even when it is ahead of its time.