this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
264 points (87.9% liked)
Games
32732 readers
2773 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I disagree with the premise. Nothing has "ruined gaming". On the production side, it's a booming industry increasingly making footholds in popular culture. On the consumption side, players have more choice now than they have ever had. Nobody can go load up the front page of steam or even better, the top 100 most played from last year, and tell me with a straight face that we're worse off than in the 90s or early 2000s without making an appeal to quality that will be heavily colored by their own nostalgia.
Now, are there a lot of games with greedy decision making, loot boxes, etc? Absolutely, nobody disputes that. I personally think there is nuance even there, because I genuinely am not bothered (as a player) by some forms of loot boxes or season passes. Even if you discount every game with those options though, you still have more choice than I did as a kid.
Totally disagree. The homogenization and enshittification of AAA games has meant that there is less choice than ever. More and more established IPs are tanking in quality and there aren’t enough new ones to replace them. There are certainly “more games”, but the problem with this quantity of quality style of production means that there are fewer standouts and unique experiences to actually choose from. This has resulted in entire genres collapsing under their own weight. There are still unique, standout games but I’d hardly say there are now that 10-15 years ago. And the ones we do have are more often than not made by indie and AA studios.
I'd argue that the indie and AA studios are making games today that are as good as or better than the pre-enshitification AAA games of the 90s and 00s. Maybe not quite as high in production value for cinematics, but on par or better for game content and play.
Like I've been largely ignoring AAA options and still have a huge backlog of games and generally have fun with new ones I try out, including finding new gems to add to my favourites.
So I guess if you have a base assumption that great games need to be AAA to even be contenders, the gaming situation looks worse than it did in the past, but IMO that assumption is flawed.
The problem is the AAA games are what prop up gaming consoles, which are the only reasonable way for the average person to afford gaming. All the best AA and indie games have predominantly been on PC. All my favorites are still PC only.
In the year like, 6 months to a year I’ve seen what looks like maybe start of many of them coming to consoles, but we’re still years out from seeing what becomes of that. As for right now, AA studios and indies can only afford to port things to consoles due to the large console adoption, and large console adoption is due to AAA games. If consoles stop being worth it for Sony and Microsoft to make, people will have to buy PCs. And PCs are expensive even to those with the experience to build things themselves and know how to shop for what they need to have a good experience.
The Steam Deck is priced similarly to consoles and gives access to a lot of AA and indie games. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the divide between consoles and PC gets fuzzier and fuzzier as time goes on and consoles eventually just become specific PC configurations that games can optimize for.
Plus, on that note, if you look at overall cost, buying AAA games can add up pretty quickly to outpace the cost of building a PC. If you buy enough games, a console + AAA game collection can surpass the cost of a high end PC + AA and indie game collection, especially if you're a patient gamer and can wait for good Steam sales. Every month or so, I've been buying a handful of games on sale for on average less than half the price of a single AAA new release. Building a PC just has a higher up front cost (though patience can help there, too).
The only way PC gaming is not affordable to the average person is if they're playing AAA titles. I have a GTX 780 worth ~$60 that I still use to play many indie titles like Party Animals, Planet Crafters, Stardew Valley, Lethal Company, Content Warning, etc.
I don't think what we're saying is at odds though. Thinking that AAA games are in a terrible place is a totally valid opinion to have. You get at my point in the tail end of your comment though. It has never been easier for AA and indie studios to make solid games, and there has been an explosion relative to the past. I do not personally think "gaming is ruined" as a whole by AAA games sucking the same way movies aren't ruined by Marvel and food isn't ruined by McDonalds. Good games still exist, good movies still exist, good food still exists. Dig a little past that outer layer of the latest CoD or Assassin's Creed and there's a plethora of amazing, unique, non-exploitative games available. To me, that's an argument that gaming is better than it's ever been.
Your point in there about there being less standouts is really the one that gets at what I'm saying. I do disagree though. If we look at prior eras of gaming, it was almost exclusively AAA making sales and driving the direction of the industry. Even just releasing a game on a major platform was insanely prohibitive. Now, I have a massive laundry list of totally awesome indies. Outer Wilds made me cry, Return of the Obra Dinn was a concept I have never seen before, Baldur's Gate ruined a month of my life. What series of indie or even AAA releases was able to do a run of games like that in the 360/ps3 era? We barely had xbox arcade on consoles and steam was still in bare infancy, more associated as being an orange box launcher than as a marketplace for indies.
Maybe watch the video lol? She acknowledges games are better then they've ever been, she's just pointing out how corporate greed has created a trend of publishers forcing half-baked games out the front door and fixing them later (or not).
But that's my point, how is that "ruining gaming"? Her words in the video do not support the premise. Just don't play those games, and you have a larger backlog than ever of games that she admits are better than they've ever been. The presence of bad games does not ruin the good ones. This video is just rage bait for upset gamers.
sigh. ok boomer, that wasn't the conversation but sure, pipe in with a story about the old days, we care and it matters, no, really, it's ok. pat pat.
I think this is the first time I've ever been called a boomer lol. All good if yall feel a different way. I just think if we have BG3, Helldivers, and Elden Ring in the span of 3 years, it's hard to say we're at a loss for good games.
Edit: Also, "ruined" implies a previous better state, which is what I was addressing with my reference to that time period. I figured this would be obvious, but I'm picking up now that some people are thinking I just took a chance to talk about how much harder my childhood was. Possibly just bad wording on my part.
In other words: "Because I'm not bothered by X, neither should you be".
I don't think that's a reasonable paraphrase of my argument. I think you're perfectly entitled to be bothered by things like loot boxes in gaming. I am more than troubled by their implementation in a lot of games aimed at children, like I imagine a lot of us are.
That is a far cry from saying "gaming is ruined", and that's really my entire point. One or even several things you're bothered by existing doesn't mean that the entire industry or state of gaming is in any way "ruined".
you're defending the indefensible. Modern gaming is largely shit. games are boring, with little to no replay value other than "seasons". Games are regularly released in total shit show conditions only to be patched later. Your argument of 'we have so much more' is a bad one as it doesn't matter how many games we have available, if the large majority of them are garbage or in a garbage state. of course the more shit you throw at the wall, the more will eventually stick. Baldur's Gate is a once in a generation game.
I just don't agree that the majority of games are garbage or in a garbage state. There are plenty of good games coming out. I've listed several in this thread. Baldur's Gate is a once in a generation game. So is Elden Ring. So is Outer Wilds. Not being exhaustive here, just some of my favorites. How many "once in a generation" games are required before we can admit that there are good options out there? The state of gaming should not be defined by its lows, but by the whole.
Hey, listen though, I'm just here to have a discussion, not trying to change your mind. There is a lot of bad going on in video games, and I don't like it either. This is really a matter of perspective at the end of the day, so there's no right or wrong answer here.
You're listing games over a year old. Steam had over 14k new releases in 23. There's maybe 10 good games in any given year, and generally less than 3 great games. They are absolutely swimming in a pool od shit games.
It's a matter of perspective, I suppose, and I was really just naming semi-recent games that I enjoyed, so I assumed I didn't need to be exhaustive of every "good" game that has come out to satisfy the argument. There are hundreds of McDonald's for every French Laundry, dozens of Marvel and adaption movies for every Best Picture winner, and the same applies to games.
I genuinely insist that you focus on that pool of shitty games if you want to. I can see how concerned you and a lot of others in this thread would be, because that is only going to grow as development becomes more accessible. I'm going to focus on the high points, play the good indies in currently backed up on, and have a good time. I don't expect that supply to dry up any time soon.
point proven.
Please read the rest of the sentence you quoted.
I wouldn't consider Outer Wilds a "once in a generation" game. I was a lack luster space shooter. Elden Ring is right on that edge, good, great even, but it's difficulty limits the player base. But you're just naming recent "GOTY" candidates. Of course those ones are good. You've named 3-5 games that are "good". how many shit games come out that are absolute trash? For every Elden Ring there are 15 trash knockoffs on Steam. For every Outer Wilds, there is an "Anthem". "just some of MY favorites", again, you're using YOUR bias to try and prove your point. I know many gamers who didn't like Baldur's Gate, Elden Ring, or Outer Wilds because they aren't "multiplayer" in the way that say, Helldivers or Conan or Apex are. Throw enough shit at the wall and something's going to stick. There's a reason emulators are so big. Old games had a certain charm that makes them almost infinitely replayable. People today can pick up Super Mario Bros and have a ball. Mario 3 is one of the best games ever made. Super Metroid is a masterpiece. None of these games had to resort to "seasons" or "loot boxes". They delivered full, complete games. Publishers today just bank on DLC and "games as a service" to make money instead of making a fun, complete game. I get bug fixes, sure. Games today are far more complex than they ever have been. Season passes, Battle passes, DLC, Loot boxes, skins, etc all drive at the point being made here. Modern gaming isn't about the game its about how much the publisher can get into your wallet. THAT is why modern gaming sucks.
You're confusing Outer Worlds and Outer Wilds (no big deal, I have to remind myself constantly lol). Trust me, Outer Wilds is a once in a generation game, at least for some of us.
I don't really see how you can on one hand accuse me of using my biases and then turn around and say that three GOTY candidates are not actually all that great because you know some people who didn't like them all that much. That feels inconsistent to me. I was also never arguing that gaming is in a great place because I like these games, but rather just because these were highly-rated (on average by both users and critics).
I have additionally addressed multiple times that I am by no means saying that there are not bad games being released or that there are not problematic patterns, especially in the AAA space. Seeing all these arguments about loot boxes and season passes when I have explicitly mentioned that digging past that layer of titles is necessary to find the good games (which I have listed non-exhaustive examples of above) is just giving me the impression that you are not truly wanting to engage with the core conceit here. You seem very passionate about this and there's nothing wrong with that, but honestly, I'm not a huge fan of your argument style and I think I'd rather just agree to disagree on this very inconsequential topic. Feel free to respond, but I will likely not reply to your next response.
No, I'm not confusing them. There's nothing once in a generation about either one to be frank. they are fine games, better than most, but in no way would I define either one a once in a generation game.
You're putting words into my mouth. If anyone is arguing in poor faith here it's you. I didn't say those games were bad, I said there are people that didn't like them. and you LITERALLY did say gaming was good because you liked those games and they were good in YOUR opinion. I like all those games. Baldur's gate was one of the best games I can remember playing. Elden ring was amazing after i got over the difficulty curve.
the issue YOU'RE not seeing here is you keep defending these AAA titles with loot boxes and everything by "digging past" it. What do all the GOTY titles we've spoke about have in common? no loot boxes. no seasons. none of that bullshit. there is no concessions to be made. your argument of "gaming is in a good place because there are a couple good games that you have to dig to find" is flawed. There is ALWAYS going to be games that rise to the top. always. the point of the original article is that we are in a crap time in gaming, not because there are not ANY good games, but because the majority of what's being released relies on Loot boxes, seasons, etc to make money instead of making and selling a GOOD game FIRST. The majority of games being released are made with a "service" in mind, be it season passes, battle passes, loot boxes, nickel and diming players to death.
and your "stab" about "you seem very passionate" is a bullshit line. that entire last paragraph is a cop-out because you have no argument that makes sense and you know it so you're "bowing out of the conversation" in a sad attempt to save face. Feel free to respond but I likely don't give a shit.
WELL I'm NOT very PASSIONATE about IT either.
You sure do argue in good faith buddy, for sure. You can even admit when you made a common tiny mistake that I gave you every bit of grace on!
Your paragraphs are just badly-formatted run-on thoughts that don't even accurately address my points, you completely misunderstand what I mean by "dig through", you confront random asides instead of the central point I'm making, and you manage to show your ass harder than anyone else in this thread. Wasn't even here to argue, just wanted to have a discussion on gaming and everyone else here managed to disagree with me politely and just discuss without being a raging asshole. All of that is why I didn't want to continue my argument with you.
Right, so your rebuttal is trying to attack ME, not my argument. The mask is off now buddy.
You still haven't addressed my argument? I'll wait for that message. To be clear, here it is: While there ARE a multitude of bad games with bad practices out there, particularly in the AAA space, there has NEVER been a more accessible period for indies and AA studios to create games. This has led to an EXPLOSION of solid games without predatory practices. All told, I believe there are MORE of these good AA/indie options than there were good AAA options in the past. I listed some of my favorite above (NON-EXHAUSTIVELY and only as EXAMPLES, not as a basis for my argument, which you ignored TIME and TIME again to set up your STRAWMAN). These games were also highly rated by the industry as a whole, which is why we're talking about them at all. Of course, this entire discussion is SUBJECTIVE, so there will always be people who despair at the given state of any industry. I though, believe there are PLENTY of fantastic, non-predatory, non-loot-boxed, non-season-passed, highly rated games out there. The fact that there are also a large number of bad games out there too DOES NOT HURT ME if I don't play them and I have those good options to play. FOR ME, that's why gaming is in a good state. And to drive another point home, I'M NOT TRYING TO CHANGE YOUR MIND! Hate it if you want. I was just trying to discuss the topic, not have a big fight with a stranger on the internet.