Poll of the Day > AS bad as gaming has become, at least it's not all brown anymore...

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/images/070119.jpg
---

Gaming has only gotten better.

green dragon posted...

Gaming has only gotten better.

The games themselves? Debatable, but it's certainly not as bleak as many people with rose-tinted nostalgia glasses would have you believe, and there are plenty of awesome games coming out each year. The industry's practices? Oh hell no. That envelope full of **** gets pushed further and further with each new big release, and I long for the days when Horse Armour DLC was considered controversial.
---

There's definitely still a lot of brown in "realistic" games, as well as, terrible bloom and bad lighting. It might have gotten a little bit better but devs are still reliant on dark and gritty color palettes to make their games seem ""realistic".
---

Was this a console thing? I don't remember it.
---

gaming is largly better then it has ever been. whenever people talk about the past htey bring up the same games. they never wanna talk about all the garbage that was on old consoles.
---

This is old person talk, " _____ was better back then"
---

Gaming exists on a curve for me. I was the happiest from PS1 through OG Xbox, honestly... CoD4 and Gears of War were sort of the "last hurrah" moment for me before I started think things were on the decline.

(NES was the first console I owned...) The '80s consisted of hardware that was too limited to really be creative with, development-wise. The early '90s consoles were better, but still constrained in the same way. Games were, for the most part, still very much a passion-focused industry, because they weren't really mainstream. Once we got to the PS1 and N64 is when the technology finally became advanced enough that we saw a creative use of hardware that increased software variety/versatility (because there was more wiggle room) while artistic integrity still remained for the most part because of core demographics and a "not quite there yet" situation. This harmony of "what we can actually do" and "what our vision is" would improve further into the DC/PS2/GC/Xbox era. Companies had more freedom, but still needed to rely on creativity rather than raw power or gimmicks to impress people.

The following generation was where gaming went from something different to something average, overall. It didn't start off that way, but around 2008 or 2009 there was this shift I noticed. From that point on, budgets ballooned and the sky felt like the limit for everything, but this meant resources would be allocated differently and an influx of casual gamers changed the main target demographic for the platform. No generation is bad, weighed objectively. Yeah, maybe the PS4 library has less heart than the SNES one did (subjective), but look at it from the other perspective: if this was 1993 and somebody offered you a PS4 for your SNES, you'd ditch it like an annoying baby in front of an orphanage.
---

ssj4supervegeta posted...

gaming is largly better then it has ever been. whenever people talk about the past htey bring up the same games. they never wanna talk about all the garbage that was on old consoles.

Gaming is mostly like life. Some things are better now, some things are definitely worse now, the future absolutely looks bleak as fuck (and likely won't be as bad as it looks like it's going to be), and people are always going to remember earlier experiences more fondly because they felt them far more keenly the first time than they do when it's become more commonplace.

As an example, I can easily say that GTAV is probably the best game in the franchise so far, but in spite of the fact that I DID enjoy it, I probably didn't enjoy it as much as I did GTAIII at the time. In the same vein, as meh as I thought Dragon Age: Inquisition was (and it absofuckinglutely was), I can still acknowledge it's probably better in nearly every way than KotOR was - in spite of the fact that I enjoyed KotOR far, far more at the time (and even now, honestly). As games get better and our expectations rise accordingly, games which would have been phenomenal in the past are only mediocre now.

That being said, it's entirely possible that, on average, gaming now IS worse than ever before (at least in a signal-to-noise sense). Because there's a LOT of fucking shovelware out there on Steam and in the indie arcade sections of consoles, and AAA gaming is pulling some heinous shit. So for every stellar game that comes out and is absolutely awesome and groundbreaking, you have to wade through an ocean of feces to find them.

Fortunately, the Internet, YouTube, and social media being what they are, it's also easier than ever before to learn from other people's mistakes and hear which games are good and which are terrible long before you ever consider buying them, so sifting through that shit is easier than ever before as well.


---

adjl posted...

The games themselves?

Nah, I didn't specifically mean games themselves, but the act of gaming.

Games are so much more readily available than they were in the past. Wanna play dig dug? Sure, I can play that any where I want to on my phone. Even though roms and emus aren't legal, they have made gaming even better.

adjl posted...

The industry's practices? Oh hell no

I think that's extremely debatable. DLC overall is great for gaming. Yeah, there is the terrible dlc, like you mentioned, but there is also amazing dlc that developers make after the game is released (or at least made at the end of the base game's development ).

Plus, there are indie games which typically don't try to nickel and dime gamers.

There is such a wealth of options now that even if you don't like the current state of mainstream games, you can go indie.

I could type out a better, more thought out and more detailed post, but I'm on my phone right now, sorry

green dragon posted...

Gaming has only gotten better.

If you mean indies, hardware, and general Nintendo then yeah pretty much
---

Oh - another good example of the "the past shapes our expectations of the future" as a reason why we tend to be harsher judges of newer games is Deus Ex: Invisible War. It's not actually a BAD game, and most people probably would have enjoyed it if it was a standalone game, but because it was attached to the Deus Ex franchise, and because the first Deus Ex game set such massively high standards for what the franchise COULD be, Invisible War basically wound up getting judged by higher standards than it could ever hope to live up to, and most people bashed it as a terrible game (which it really wasn't).

In a similar echo of that, Human Revolution managed to reap positive reaction when it came out years later, seemingly redeeming the series from the failure of Invisible War, but then Mankind Divided failed to build on that hype, and further engaged in some of the shadier AAA practices, which ultimately tanked it extremely hard. Being judged by the standards of its own time, it was a failure. But project it back in time a decade or two (and strip the microtransactions out of it), and it probably would have been much better received.

And on that note...



darcandkharg31 posted...

This is old person talk, " _____ was better back then"

As much as that is indeed "old person talk", the corollary of that might be that "young people" lack any of the necessary context to judge any older game by the standards of its time. Kids who grew up playing Call of Duty or Skyrim lack the capacity to appreciate just how innovative games like Wolfenstein 3D or Dragon Warrior were in their own time, and thus won't understand why anyone has nostalgic feelings for them, or view them as anything other than crap.

That isn't really a virtue, though. When I was younger most people I knew would dismiss a movie out of hand if it was in black and white, because we considered it "old garbage". In the same vein, young people today aren't likely to appreciate movies from the 1970s with their slower pacing and lack of flashy special effects. But as those same people grow older - and if they're willing to keep an open mind - they'll likely develop at least some appreciation for older artistic works, even if only in a second hand sense (ie, "I don't enjoy this myself, but I at least understand why other people might, and that it's a significant influence on the development of the art form as it currently exists").


---

green dragon posted...

DLC overall is great for gaming. Yeah, there is the terrible dlc, like you mentioned, but there is also amazing dlc that developers make after the game is released (or at least made at the end of the base game's development ).

The flip side of that coin is that DLC also opens the doors to predatory development, wherein a developer (often encouraged or ordered to by their publisher) doesn't create new content after a game is released to enhance the experience, as much as gouge out content that should have been in the core game in the first place and then sell it back to you bordering on extortion.

For every CD Projekt/Witcher 3 scenario where the DLC is great (and a lot of DLC is actually released free to players as a thank you for buying the game), there are far too many cases of DLC that feels like it exists solely to exploit players or otherwise milk consumers for everything they're worth.

Plus, DLC in general is what opened the door to loot boxes and microtransactions, which are slowly becoming more and more manipulative and borderline criminal in the AAA space.

And yes, lots of people love to say that "If you dislike what AAA publishers are doing just play indie games, but that's ignoring the fact that a) the vast majority of indie games are hot garbage, b) a lot of indie titles are PC-exclusive and console gamers don't really have that option, and c) the vast majority of really enjoyable games from the past few decades have been AAA titles - and with that development space removed from the equation, a proportionate degree of worthwhile titles go with it.

Sure, there's going to be the occasional indie game that excels and can provide hours of fun, but the landscape is going to be a lot bleaker for more casual gamers who don't have the time or the option to go trawling for those occasional pearls in an ocean of shit.


---

green dragon posted...

Gaming has only gotten better.

darcandkharg31 posted...

This is old person talk, " _____ was better back then"

green dragon posted...

I think that's extremely debatable. DLC overall is great for gaming. Yeah, there is the terrible dlc, like you mentioned, but there is also amazing dlc that developers make after the game is released (or at least made at the end of the base game's development ).

Plus, there are indie games which typically don't try to nickel and dime gamers.

There is such a wealth of options now that even if you don't like the current state of mainstream games, you can go indie.

Oh, the options definitely exist, and that's great. The worst of the industry's practices now, though, are far, far worse than they were in the past, and have gained far more mainstream presence than anything so awful should ever have been allowed to. There's a lot to be upset about in today's gaming industry, even if all of that bull**** can be avoided.

I also do agree that, by and large, DLC is a good thing. It gets abused (a lot), but when it's done right (i.e. the natural evolution of the expansions of old) it's a great opportunity to get more out of a game you like, and continue to support developers that are making something good. Some people fundamentally hate the concept, but I really don't agree with that at all.

green dragon posted...

DLC overall is great for gaming

Not really. A ton of it is shit that should have been in the base game or free.
---

Revelation34 posted...

green dragon posted...

DLC overall is great for gaming

Not really. A ton of it is shit that should have been in the base game or free.

christ this is stupid logic
---

The brown/grey games were at a peak before 2009.
Then games like Flower, Uncharted 2 and Enslaved quickly ended that horrible trend.

helIy posted...

christ this is stupid logic

Sure it is.
---

adjl posted...

That envelope full of **** gets pushed further and further with each new big release, and I long for the days when Horse Armour DLC was considered controversial.

Completely forgot about that. Yeah put that into perspective compared to what's going on today, wow

gaming lost its soul halfway through last gen. now you just hope for a gem here and there.
---

Gaming is not all brown anymore?

Gaming is in a dark age that makes the 1983 crash seem like a walk in the park with a big void coming to destroy gaming (F2P mobile, gaccha in $60 games, and other microtransactions) it's pitch black to the point that you can't even see the light at the end of the tunnel..
---

DLC like basically everything that exists is fine in moderation. planned DLC is when you start getting into grey areas. and when it's something that clearly shoulda been in the main game, it's an obvious cash grab, which is no good. but overall i like that it exists. it's ok to like something even when it's used poorly.
---

adjl posted...

The industry's practices? Oh hell no. That envelope full of **** gets pushed further and further with each new big release, and I long for the days when Horse Armour DLC was considered controversial.

Yep.

Although it is nice to see gamers stand up against bad practices. (Battlefront 2 being the most recent example.)

MacrossSpecial posted...

Was this a console thing? I don't remember it.

It went hand in hand with the 'mature' edgy fad that still sticks around to some extent. Everything is morally gray and bleak, and so are all the graphics! Now let's throw in a few brutal violent scenes and lots of swearing and we have a game that makes people feel all grown up!

It was also because the engine tools to make First Person Shooters are very well done compared to the tools available for developers of most other genres. But, those tools tended to include only the sorts of things you needed for realistic graphics by default.

As making a different looking FPS would thus require a bunch more development, many devs aiming for a reasonably cheaply made and thus profitable FPS used as much of the default engine stuff as they could.
.
---

That doesn't explain the brown and browner art direction in the mid 2000s.

adjl posted...

The games themselves? Debatable, but it's certainly not as bleak as many people with rose-tinted nostalgia glasses would have you believe, and there are plenty of awesome games coming out each year. The industry's practices? Oh hell no. That envelope full of **** gets pushed further and further with each new big release, and I long for the days when Horse Armour DLC was considered controversial.

Sums up my thoughts. I'm enjoying each year as many great games come out but I've come to expect most publishers to be terrible with the money grabbing. I don't see it getting any better.
---

Gaming humor is so goddamn lazy

People need to stop confusing their own personal nostalgia with quality.
---

Xfma100 posted...

Although it is nice to see gamers stand up against bad practices. (Battlefront 2 being the most recent example.)

Kinda ridiculous since EA had already done fucked up shit before that.
---

benbeverfaqs posted...

The brown/grey games were at a peak before 2009.
Then games like Flower, Uncharted 2 and Enslaved quickly ended that horrible trend.

I remember enslaved. It had this weird blend of having brownish qualities and yet being really colorful
---

I sadly admit I assumed Dark Souls was one of those brown/grey games. Only after I finally listened to a friend who nagged me to play it for years did I appreciate its world design.

Brown is Fine since its neutral. You'd rather not have all red, or all blue or all pink.

What really gets on my nerves is the Dark gamma and low contrast . It could be broad daylight outside, but everything still looks Dark with no contrast. I just quit right away.
---

Amuseum posted...

Brown is Fine since its neutral. You'd rather not have all red, or all blue or all pink.

What really gets on my nerves is the Dark gamma and low contrast . It could be broad daylight outside, but everything still looks Dark with no contrast. I just quit right away.

That's why games have brightness settings.
---

I've been playing Morrowind lately.
So many tones of sepia!

In a slightly unrelated thought, I still can't wrap my brain around the fact that Minecraft looks so purposefully pixel -y and generally terrible, especially in this day and age, when we have games from 6 years ago that look like Skyrim.

Minecraft hurts my eyes.
---

SusanGreenEyes posted...

I've been playing Morrowind lately.
So many tones of sepia!

In a slightly unrelated thought, I still can't wrap my brain around the fact that Minecraft looks so purposefully pixel -y and generally terrible, especially in this day and age, when we have games from 6 years ago that look like Skyrim.

Minecraft hurts my eyes.

Well obviously Skyrim looks like Skyrim.
---

Revelation34 posted...

SusanGreenEyes posted...

I've been playing Morrowind lately.
So many tones of sepia!

In a slightly unrelated thought, I still can't wrap my brain around the fact that Minecraft looks so purposefully pixel -y and generally terrible, especially in this day and age, when we have games from 6 years ago that look like Skyrim.

Minecraft hurts my eyes.

Well obviously Skyrim looks like Skyrim.

My point is that we possess the technology that no game ever has to look like Minecraft.
It's not the 1980s.
There's no reason for this.
---

SusanGreenEyes posted...

I've been playing Morrowind lately.
So many tones of sepia!

In a slightly unrelated thought, I still can't wrap my brain around the fact that Minecraft looks so purposefully pixel -y and generally terrible, especially in this day and age, when we have games from 6 years ago that look like Skyrim.

Minecraft hurts my eyes.

wasn't minecraft a low budget indie game that just happened to get super popular?

I may not like minecraft but I respect it for proving a game doesn't need good graphics to become super popular
---

SusanGreenEyes posted...

Revelation34 posted...

SusanGreenEyes posted...

I've been playing Morrowind lately.
So many tones of sepia!

In a slightly unrelated thought, I still can't wrap my brain around the fact that Minecraft looks so purposefully pixel -y and generally terrible, especially in this day and age, when we have games from 6 years ago that look like Skyrim.

Minecraft hurts my eyes.

Well obviously Skyrim looks like Skyrim.

My point is that we possess the technology that no game ever has to look like Minecraft.
It's not the 1980s.
There's no reason for this.

Except for the fact that games in the 1980s looked nothing like Minecraft.
---

SusanGreenEyes posted...

Revelation34 posted...

SusanGreenEyes posted...

I've been playing Morrowind lately.
So many tones of sepia!

In a slightly unrelated thought, I still can't wrap my brain around the fact that Minecraft looks so purposefully pixel -y and generally terrible, especially in this day and age, when we have games from 6 years ago that look like Skyrim.

Minecraft hurts my eyes.

Well obviously Skyrim looks like Skyrim.

My point is that we possess the technology that no game ever has to look like Minecraft.
It's not the 1980s.
There's no reason for this.

Minecraft was not particularly easy to run on many machines when it came out. It may LOOK simple but dealing with many thousands of blocks is something that would not have worked only a couple years before the game came out.

Also not everything has to strive for realism. I personally don't understand a retro-8 bit art style since so much color is sacrificed so I can sort of relate but I never had a problem with how Minecraft looks.

Plus the blocky building/world generation would stand out more. Minecraft with modern graphics would be extremely taxing.

EverQuest Next was aiming to be sort of a Guild Wars 2/Minecraft hybrid but was cancelled with the developers saying what they made wasn't fun when executed.