Poll of the Day > Modern Games are on average much better than classic games. C/D

(+) Yeah! (+)

This is a fact. So much more effort is put into them, larger teams, more passion etc. and it truly shows.
HD era is the best.
---

How do you define 'classic'? Either way, not really. The things that made good games good and bad games bad still hasn't changed. I'd say that modern games are slightly worse, in fact, since it's a lot easier to use shovelware in greater volumes and quite a few games are little more than DLC platforms, freemiums, and remakes than what was around in the classical era of gaming (read, SNES and younger). Even in the PS1 and 2 eras these things weren't as stifiling.
---

If we are only counting "actual games" and not garbage asset flips or scams then yes. Especially if you judge the games using modern standards.
---

VeeVees posted...

If we are only counting "actual games" and not garbage asset flips or scams then yes. Especially if you judge the games using modern standards.

Erm. Graphics aside, most classical games from the SNES on were very solid in things like gameplay and story. The only reason I'm not including the NES is because the limited size and design philosophies meant most games didn't have stories and were meant to elicit arcady feelings and the limited controls made it difficult to do stuff. But if you're trying to tell me that something like Pokemon RBY/GSC, Chrono Trigger, or Street Fighter II would *fail* today if they got a graphical upgrade, I'd laugh.
---

Zangulus posted...

User Since: May 2004
Karma: 267
Active Posts: 2

That's actually pretty impressive.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

VeeVees posted...

If we are only counting "actual games" and not garbage asset flips or scams then yes. Especially if you judge the games using modern standards.

Erm. Graphics aside, most classical games from the SNES on were very solid in things like gameplay and story. The only reason I'm not including the NES is because the limited size and design philosophies meant most games didn't have stories and were meant to elicit arcady feelings and the limited controls made it difficult to do stuff. But if you're trying to tell me that something like Pokemon RBY/GSC, Chrono Trigger, or Street Fighter II would *fail* today if they got a graphical upgrade, I'd laugh.

Noone is saying that they would not succeed if given modern graphics. Even shovelware today is playable. Back in the day the good games were all that were playable. Ever since the PS2/GC/Xbox/DS/PSP era games started to shift to where the bad games were playable.

HD era is icing on that cake. Where a lot of effort is put into all games.
---

I'm forced to disagree, .... If you said only AAA games, then yes - the average game now is better than the average game then, but this is an era of unparalleled garbage. Exponents more shovelware than even the Wii foreign market.
---

Disagree, lower budgets meant more risks with AAA games and resulted in more variation. So much today is similar minus gems like Nintendo and Sony first party games

Old was forced to focus on important things, now they hire people to skin the fake box for your shit dlc gamble.
---

I'll be honest I only clicked due to that username.

Still: D. They are around the same.
---

i will say games are a lot easier and that have no secrets compared to older games.

Old games had cheats and glitches that you exploit to make it more fun. Hell they would never make an NBA Jam game today with Bill, Hillary and George Clinton today.

Now everything is streamlined and feels like i'm going down a hallway or i have entered a closet. Everything feels kind of the same now.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

VeeVees posted...

If we are only counting "actual games" and not garbage asset flips or scams then yes. Especially if you judge the games using modern standards.

Erm. Graphics aside, most classical games from the SNES on were very solid in things like gameplay and story. The only reason I'm not including the NES is because the limited size and design philosophies meant most games didn't have stories and were meant to elicit arcady feelings and the limited controls made it difficult to do stuff. But if you're trying to tell me that something like Pokemon RBY/GSC, Chrono Trigger, or Street Fighter II would *fail* today if they got a graphical upgrade, I'd laugh.

Are you saying a bare bone fighter like SF2 would not get ripped apart by fans for lacking characters, features, and modes? The fact that you even have to bring up IF they got a graphical upgrade means they are already lacking by modern standards.
---

Depends on your definition of each. When you say "classic," however, clearly no -- you're comparing everything made today (good or bad) against the best of the things made years ago. Modern games are obviously going to be inferior as a whole.

If you're comparing everything made today vs everything made.... let's say 15+ years ago, then it's a coin flip because there's currently a dumpster load of crap that gets unloaded on Steam and low-quality mobile games where those problems were less prevalent 15 years ago. If it's everything made today vs everything made 25+ years ago, maybe.
---

I respectively disagree considering about 20% of all modern games are remakes of classic game. Then like others have said there's all the crap dime a dozen mobile games out there.
Now don't get me wrong there's definitely some great games coming out now a days. It's just that it feels like there's so few that will truly stand the test of time.
---

Effort? No.

Larger teams? Yes.

Passion? No.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

Pokemon RBY/GSC

Didn't those already get remade?

As for the original question, it's kinda hard. I have lots of games from a long time ago that I loved. And would love to replay. While that could be because they were great, it could also be either nostalgia or the fact that I was shit at completing games when I was younger. I would say that comparing the average good game now to the average good game in the past is kinda hard. I would say probably similiar. But I lean to modern games. I feel like if I thought games were getting worse, I would have stopped playing them...
---

They got a remake for the GBA and 3DS respectively. IIRC HeartGold and SoulSilver are still the most expensive Pokemon games. I think they even went up in price from their original sale value.

Anyways, I've noticed over the past few years that people have almost been conditioned to think that anything 2D or with lower graphics is 'bad'. That makes comparisons hard because it's a huge mental hurdle to sit down and look at something like ALttP and review it on merit and actual quality when most people see its graphics and immediately cap it's potential if not outright dismiss it. I suspect a lot would sooner play Dragon Age: Inquisition instead of Chrono Trigger just because of the graphics.
---

I agree that newer games are generally better
---

You can't really make a fair comparison if your going by modern standards. Games are much higher now mainly do to tech. Yes games are better now a days, but mainly because technology has advanced so far, we can put all kinds of stuff in games nowadays. The only comparison you can really do now is fun factor. I feel both have a pretty equal amount. Genres have changed a lot as well. Even rpg's don't play the same anymore. Turn based rpg's seem all but dead, with a straggler here and there.
---

I don't think that everybody thinks a 2D game is bad. Or that people would only play a game because it has better graphics. But you also can't just compare the average games of today with the really good games of he past. Either average games against average games. Or good games against good games... As yutterh said, it depend on the fun factor. And things have changed a lot. Even controller layouts have changed to make it easier to play the games these days. Haha. I love old games, and a lot of those games even beat out some modern games. But I still feel modern has been able to make games better... at least, a little...
---

When it comes to 2D games, the old games are better on average... it hurts to use averages for this since there are some rather exceptional new ones.
---

ernieforss posted...

i will say games are a lot easier and that have no secrets compared to older games.

Old games had cheats and glitches that you exploit to make it more fun. Hell they would never make an NBA Jam game today with Bill, Hillary and George Clinton today.

Now everything is streamlined and feels like i'm going down a hallway or i have entered a closet. Everything feels kind of the same now.

I love secrets in older games

Yep

Technological advances has allowed lots of innovation. There is only so much you could do with a few pixels
---

Far too often I see people playing modern games and getting tricked into thinking they are experiencing content when they are actually experiencing a short reward being drawn out into a long one.
---

no, but I was just noticing yesterday that the entire Dark Souls series is completely a product of this decade (the 10s). even Demon's Souls only came out in 2009.
---

This is one of dumbest topics on this site's history.

How can you judge the two different periods in a fair way? There's no fucking way.

Saying shit like "more effort and passion is put into new games in comparison to classics" is fucking dumb. If anything, it's the complete opposite. The videogame industry was not a multibillion dollar industry back then. There was no online play, no game release platforms like Steam, no digital downloads, no freemium and subscription based games, no DLCs, barely any esports, and so on. Story, characters and plot were more substantial back then because developers CARED about the product. Nowadays, the shift has moved towards gameplay and graphics, and this only applies to superficial gaming.

Anyone that says that they can objectively make a comparison between games that are 20 years apart is just talking out of their ass.
---

HagenEx posted...

Anyone that says that they can objectively make a comparison between games that are 20 years apart is just talking out of their ass.

Aside from so called "objective" opinions... anyone over 20 or who was otherwise present for the entire life of gaming would have direct insight.
---

the main reason the quality fell so dramatically post-SNES was because of 3D. 3D "ruined" gaming, and in some sense it will never recover. but even though it has become so expensive to make games, at least partially if not largely due to 3D, we have at least returned to a point where creativity can be expressed more or less as desired through the medium with a minimum of technical constraints getting in the way.
---

Sahuagin posted...

the main reason the quality fell so dramatically post-SNES was because of 3D. 3D "ruined" gaming, and in some sense it will never recover. but even though it has become so expensive to make games, at least partially if not largely due to 3D, we have at least returned to a point where creativity can be expressed more or less as desired through the medium with a minimum of technical constraints getting in the way.

How some of the best games are 3D?

I neither agree nor disagree. I love certain 'classic' games (many on SNES), and I love many 'modern' games (PC, Wii U). Many 'modern' games are done in a 'classic' way, or fuse styles. Too basic of a question for me.
---

What's classic? The OG Battlefront II is the GOAT game so whatever that's in is the best
---

On average? Disagree.

While some of the best games of the modern era easily stand above the greats of the past, the sheer roaring river of diarrhea being shat out by both indie developers as well as triple-A publishers vastly dwarfs even the worst excesses of the shovelware eras. For every pearl, you have to wade through an ocean of shit.


---

bulbinking posted...

Far too often I see people playing modern games and getting tricked into thinking they are experiencing content when they are actually experiencing a short reward being drawn out into a long one.

you just described every form of media ever dude
---

goldbman posted...

How some of the best games are 3D?

by "ruined" I basically meant "irrevocably changed the course of video game history". if there was no 3D, well... who knows I guess. maybe the 2D golden age would have continued for decades to come. or maybe it would have run its course and then faded away with no further advancements to keep it going. but I know there was a huge dip in gaming quality there, pretty much directly caused by 3D. we've only recently been able to have as much creative freedom in 3D as we did in 2D.
---

Nightengale posted...

bulbinking posted...

Far too often I see people playing modern games and getting tricked into thinking they are experiencing content when they are actually experiencing a short reward being drawn out into a long one.

you just described every form of media ever dude

I mean what was once an unlockable item is now an update within a dlc that was advertised and hyped on twitch 1 month before official release.
---

Sahuagin posted...

goldbman posted...

How some of the best games are 3D?

by "ruined" I basically meant "irrevocably changed the course of video game history". if there was no 3D, well... who knows I guess. maybe the 2D golden age would have continued for decades to come. or maybe it would have run its course and then faded away with no further advancements to keep it going. but I know there was a huge dip in gaming quality there, pretty much directly caused by 3D. we've only recently been able to have as much creative freedom in 3D as we did in 2D.

Actually I would argue the early 3D era was one of the most creative in gaming history

goldbman posted...

Actually I would argue the early 3D era was one of the most creative in gaming history

well... ok. there's two sides of a coin there, really.

on one side you have tons of constraints on what is possible. you're right, while you might think that stifles creativity, the counter-intuitive result is actually that it tends to breed creativity since it forces you to "get creative" in order to make something stand out. this is why early 2D is also a highly creative era, why 8-bit music is often so good, etc.

ok, but there's also the other side, which is when there are far less constraints on what is possible, when you can do anything you can think of. this can actually have a tendency to reduce creativity because it doesn't force you to be creative, *but it doesn't have to* and gifted people with the right ideas can make even better things in this situation.

basically, there are great games that emerge from both of these kinds of situations, which probably couldn't have emerged from the other.

you will not get SMB1 without constraints, and you won't get Dark Souls 3 with them.
---

bulbinking posted...

Nightengale posted...

bulbinking posted...

Far too often I see people playing modern games and getting tricked into thinking they are experiencing content when they are actually experiencing a short reward being drawn out into a long one.

you just described every form of media ever dude

I mean what was once an unlockable item is now an update within a dlc that was advertised and hyped on twitch 1 month before official release.

I disagree with this. Yeah some games obviously have cut content but not all dlc is cut content. I wish dlc and updates existed back then. When a game had broken things in it, it was broken forever. Yeah DLC can be exploited but I rather their be some exploitive DOC then no DLC.
---

Eh. Doesnt matter. Good games are both old and new.

The pinnacle of gaming was high budget sprites games (basically, SNES). That's when games did a few things but did them well, and companies didn't need to spend a fortune just to get things to run at all. There's still tons and tons of good games these days, but so much time is spent on things that don't matter, I feel there's a lot more noise. Long gone are the days of masterpieces after masterpieces coming back to back (though the Switch is having a pretty decent run. Maybe the world is changing).

One of the first, most basic, rpgs ever, Wizardry Proving grounds of the Mad overlord, was more enjoyable to me at the time, and more wonderous, then any RPG I have played since.

One thing you can't really take into consideration is that while games may be "better" now, have more content etc, they are all built upon previous games, which has happened slowly over time, and makes those of us that have played games all these years, jaded.

So even if a game is much better, it may not be as enjoyable as older games.

Take the first Zelda for instance, that game was FREAKING INSANELY FUN...while it came out, and is still playable and enjoyable today.

Honestly I still enjoy playing it more then the last few Zelda games, and my favorite over all zelda of them all is still Zelda 2 Links adventures.

Or take another early RPG, the first Final Fantasy. I enjoyed it enough to play through it with every single combination of characters, even 4 white mages. Heck even talking about it right now makes me want to play it, and that wasn't my favorite Final Fantasy....6 (or 3) was.

Then you had Sega's wonderful version of Shadowrun, still my favorite shadowrun game to date, even with many new versions released lately.

Or what about original Doom vs the new Doom. Yeah, graphics are better, and more was added, but I played new doom less then 20 hours and gave it to a friend. I played original doom for probably over a thousand hours, with friends on lans and loved it.

Heck it's funny, but I recently just played a mud for a month or so, which where the original MMO's (other then local BBS games like crossroads etc). Honestly I played 12+ hours a day nonstop and loved it more then any of the newer MMO's I have played in the last decade. It's only text, no graphics at all....but still a blast.

So no, newer games do not automatically win against older ones, even for current enjoyment. I loved Diablo 2 waaay more then D3, and still over all more then path of exile, grim dawn etc.

I did enjoy/do enjoy Dark souls more then Kings Field games, but not neccesarily much more then Demon souls which was quite awhile ago.

Light gun games are also basically completely gone now, and some of those (like elemental gearbolt) seriously rocked.

In some ways, due to graphics (which require a much larger team and far more time) etc, games do not have the freedom they used to, or....they are just the same thing done over again, making them boring to those of us who have played similar games hundreds of times before.

We are also saturated with SO MANY games now, which is perhaps the worst thing. In the past I would play through the might and magic games from 3 up (clouds and darkside as 1) every summer during the dry spell before new games were released. Then Phantasy Star Online was released (god I loved that) and eventually Diablo 2, which replaced Might and Magic.

Now most of us have a backlog so long we couldn't ever catch up if we got locked in a room playing them for the rest of our lives. I don't finish half the games I play because once it gets slightly old, I just move on to another fresh new game.

Games may have improved over all, but the have not evolved enough in my opinion to keep older gamers enthralled anymore, too many older gamers are jaded and barely play games anymore at this point sadly.
---

Worse, and - disconcertingly - suffering from a series of problems on the design and production side that show no signs of abatement.

t3h_m45k3d_G4R0 posted...

So much more effort is put into them, larger teams, more passion etc

No, more effort and passion isn't put into them. That's stayed pretty much constant.

I mean, as one example, Yasunori Mitsuda got himself hospitalized with ulcers because of how hard he was working on Chrono Trigger. The idea that they somehow weren't passionate or put in effort back then is plainly false.

Larger teams, yes, but that's not necessarily a good thing. Let's put this in an analogy. Let's say you're asked to plan the office Christmas party for you and your ~12 co-workers. You have a budget of $1000, five volunteers who will help you with whatever you ask them to, and three weeks to plan. The following year your company is bought out at the CEO of your new company asks you to plan another Christmas party... only this one will be company-wide, with 20,000 people in attendance, some of whom have specific requirements for food/activities that you will need to accommodate. Your budget for this party is $5 million and you have been assigned a team of 250 people to help execute the party, many of whom have different ideas about what form it should take. You have three months to plan.

Is putting together the party easier in the first scenario or the second? Under which scenario are you more likely to put together a party that actually matches your ideas and vision for what should be done?

That's basically what's happened to the gaming industry over the last 20 years. Worse, because of a downright endemic rate of turnover, high-level managers and executives who know nothing about gaming have had to be imported to run the whole show, which is exactly how we get stuck with bullshit like microtransactions and Day 1 DLC.

t3h_m45k3d_G4R0 posted...

Even shovelware today is playable.

Someone apparently hasn't spent much time on Steam, particularly not in the "early access" section. Today you can pay for the privilege of paying for a game that will run for 30 seconds with horrifically glitchy physics, then crash.
---

Aside from a few examples (pokemon, elder scrolls, smash bros, etc.) game quality has been on the decline. Interestingly, this trend begins 5 months after Square Enix came into existence.
---

waterdeepchu posted...

Aside from a few examples (pokemon, elder scrolls, smash bros, etc.) game quality has been on the decline. Interestingly, this trend begins 5 months after Square Enix came into existence.

Smash peaked with Melee. It got a bit better than Brawl with 4, but I'd still rather play 64 or Melee than that.

Last couple Pokemon games have been pretty sub par too. Gen V was the best.
---

Voted "disagree", simply for the "much better" emphasis.

It's hard for me to say. Old games had more appeal to me than new ones do, but that might've been my younger age speaking as well.
---

A lot of interesting posts in this topic thank you so far for all the comments. It has been a fantastic read.
---

D - There are good games and bad games from any era or generation.
---

"Passion"? Are you kidding me? Most companies seems to only develop their games in a way so they can exploit the players and squeeze even more cash out of them.
Fuck that shit. That's why I mostly play Nintendo games nowadays.
---

LeetCheet posted...

"Passion"? Are you kidding me? Most companies seems to only develop their games in a way so they can exploit the players and squeeze even more cash out of them.
Fuck that shit. That's why I mostly play Nintendo games nowadays.

A lot of western game companies went to crap after centralization under major publishing houses around mid/late 2000s
---