Mainstream Games are so bad nowadays

[Vithcommalobsel]

I'm a huge fan of retro games, mostly because they don't hold your hand all the way through and make you feel like the Devs are playing the game instead of you. I'm glad Amnesia broke the mold and became popular while being true to gaming roots...it's super sexy, don't you think?
This is more like how I feel, tbh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5UHKVhdA...ture=inbox

[BlueFury]

True, I prefer older games in any way. Battlefield 3 is probably the only new game i like.

[Xanatos]

2007 was a great year for gaming, so many great titles came out that year: Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, Penumbra, Devil May Cry 4, Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, Portal/The Orange Box, just to name but a few. Since then however the industry has sat at about the same level, with each respective series going downhill (with the exception of Portal and FG's titles, from two of the few developers that still care about gaming beyond their pay cheques). The 'early days' were all about experimentation - gaming was a new artform that companies were playing around with and trying to find out what could be done with it. Some developers pushed immersion & creativity to the max (Looking Glass Studios' Thief games a shining example) and others were busy coming up with equally creative ways to kill lots of time in a fun way. It was a period of innovation and freedom. Although now that the larger companies have taken over (Ubisoft, Square Enix, etc) they're more concerned about netting large profits and reaching a large target audience, so they can't afford to experiment as much as in the old days. Thankfully smaller companies like FG and a few dedicated developers such as Valve are still willing to push the envelope and they need all the support they can get.

[Shadowfied]

Bioshock is the only hope for me in modern games that are not developed by indie companies. So far it's good news about the latest game in the series, I'll just keep praying that they do not fall and remove the health bar, add health regeneration, remove the beautiful exploration element which rewards people for exploring.

I'm also very sad that they ruined the FEAR series by making such a joke of a game with Fear 3. Removed the health bar, added health regeneration, by just doing this you know that the game will be soooo linear. It's such a shame..No more exploration to find medkits and talking to your friends what you experienced cause everyone will experience the exact same shit in the linear paths..

[Sel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWHHlnbZOYQ

Also adding the now is pretty silly, they've always been shitty, with the rare exceptional game. You know, just like things are now :]

[Shadowfied]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWHHlnbZOYQ

Also adding the now is pretty silly, they've always been shitty, with the rare exceptional game. You know, just like things are now :]

He has got some points, but a lot of things wrong too. Nintendo for example was dedicated to what they created, like Super Mario on the NES, and you can't say that "THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT BETTER IN THIS WAY AND THAT WAY" cause back then their games looked beautiful and they utilized what they could and you can easily see that comparing to the other shit on NES.

I am 16 years now. When I was like 6 years old my older brother got a Nintendo 64. I grew up with Super Mario 64. Again, compared to other games on the console you can see how Nintendo were dedicated and actually poured time and effort into making what they released.

The biggest problem for me is that all games NOW (it's correct to use it here) are WAY TOO LINEAR. Exploring has always been a part of games, but in most games it's just decreasing and decreasing and when we improve technology the games instead turn into cinematic experiences which can be cool, but they are still games and that's what they should be, not cinematic experiences that are all the same. I want exploration and things to check out.

The Call of Duty games, starting from Modern Warfare, in the campaigns they could have ignored so much level design and no one would notice it, cause of it's linear nature there's always a straight path to follow and you're usually very stressed or busy.

[Sel]

He has got some points, but a lot of things wrong too. Nintendo for example was dedicated to what they created, like Super Mario on the NES, and you can't say that "THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT BETTER IN THIS WAY AND THAT WAY" cause back then their games looked beautiful and they utilized what they could and you can easily see that comparing to the other shit on NES.

Uhm, yes I can. There were things that could have been done better in SM64.

I am 16 years now. When I was like 6 years old my older brother got a Nintendo 64. I grew up with Super Mario 64. Again, compared to other games on the console you can see how Nintendo were dedicated and actually poured time and effort into making what they released.

So? There's plenty of developers who are just as "dedicated" to their games now, and there were probably plenty back then too. That doesn't mean their games are pinnacles of perfection.

The biggest problem for me is that all games NOW (it's correct to use it here) are WAY TOO LINEAR. Exploring has always been a part of games, but in most games it's just decreasing and decreasing and when we improve technology the games instead turn into cinematic experiences which can be cool, but they are still games and that's what they should be, not cinematic experiences that are all the same. I want exploration and things to check out.

The Call of Duty games, starting from Modern Warfare, in the campaigns they could have ignored so much level design and no one would notice it, cause of it's linear nature there's always a straight path to follow and you're usually very stressed or busy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLYETM-6-4I

There's exploration in linear games too, so uh not sure what you're saying there.

[Vithcommalobsel]

I added a video to the OP that explains my feelings a bit better.

[boredgunner]

I agree, nearly every game released in the past 5+ years is either mediocre or crap with only a few exceptions. The following are the only ones that stand out to me (on PC at least).

- Amnesia: The Dark Descent
- Penumbra series
- S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series, mainly Shadow of Chernobyl and Call of Pripyat
- Metro 2033 (great FPS campaign)
- Cryostasis: Sleep of Reason (good horror game with an interesting story, gameplay doesn't live up to Penumbra/Amnesia though)
- The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (overrated, but so much content and free roam is done so well, plus the main campaign and story aren't bad)
- ArmA II (Combined Operations)
- Crysis - one of the better FPS campaigns and really good multiplayer with teamwork emphasis and unrivaled admin tools. Crysis Wars enhanced this, but Warhead's campaign is too linear and more generic. No silent protagonist BS at least.

Nowadays most people just want a mindless, easy PvP shooter. Even the most popular ones are terrible. Call of Duty is supposed to be a war game, but the gameplay is 100% arcade and is not even competitive, plus the storyline is completely unbelievable starting with MW2. Battlefield 3 was mediocre when it came out (when it worked, Origin and Battlelog cause all sorts of problems) but now they're updating it to increase arcade-like features... namely unrealistic downsides to the already unrealistic weapon attachments. Heavier caliber guns also do no more damage, despite having more recoil and a slower ROF. Realism is one thing, but it is also poorly balanced.

RPGs are also popular, and at least Skyrim has great gameplay. I can't say the same for Fallout, due to my limited and unpleasant experience with only New Vegas.

[Arvuti]

Why do I have a feeling that I am in a forum full of hipsters who only like games what have budgets what are lower than 5 digits and a development team you could fit in one room.

Also I love how shadowfied is complaining about linearity, eventhough amnesia and penumbra are linear as hell.