Think of it when people buy a new game they r all excited that they have the game they've been always wanted but they figure out thats its just some dumb game when they start playing it put ur opinion here.
Er. . . Depends what strategy. In general single-unit control RTSs such as Age of Empires and Starcraft you'd find that the later games have actually been "dumbed down" -- where you could rally your harvesters onto mineral patches to gather the resources whereas in Starcraft 1 you could only rely them to a place and need to select them to go to the patch and collect.
As well as control groups only allowing 12 units in Starcraft 1, with only a single building in a single control group if you tried it like that -- instead of having your 12 Barracks on a single key in Starcraft II you would have a Screen Location Key to go to your production area, to manually select each building and tell them to build. It's these 'tedious' things that make you require 300 APM in Starcraft I.
Also, more options doesn't necessarily make them better. The way people had to work around -- or how effectively they could manage their units with such restrictions could define how good they were and their speed in doing so could be a massive factor as well.
Because it gives you the ability to do something doesn't necessarily make it better. By restrictions in Chess of how the pieces can move it is brilliant, which is an immensely far-gone point but nonetheless the same.
Probably worse... nowadays its all about good graphics.There is a lot of Shooters and Sequels (NHL, CoD, Halo ,NFS and these are you just a few...) and they are all the same. Game Developers should take riskes and create something unique and cool, thankfully indie game developers do like that all time.
For me, some games have great replay value, others don't. About whether or not games have gotten better or worse... well... graphics, music, and some gameplay has improved. Storyline, on the other hand... well, it's just not very in depth anymore for me. I mean, older games are usually really fun and the ones I've played taught you moral values. Games these days have good storylines, but they don't really seem to teach you life lessons anymore, or if they do, they've been ignored due to focus on graphics, music, and gameplay.
Notice that original is in quotes. By that I mean that of course originality is totally subjective. More importantly, most game concepts are invented once and then "modified." Obviously, older games were the first to boast their achievements, and newer games will always have a harder time finding something "original."
Well, you can't really ascribe fault to anyone for that, can you? That's just the way any form of media evolves. Every game made nowadays owes some distant debt to Super Mario Bros, but that doesn't mean they can't wow you the way that game used to. Even the most basic of videogames had some sort of influence from something, if you go right down to it. Doesn't diminish them, unless they're some sort of blatant copy - which many games nowadays are, but many are not.
By oversimplification, I mean that games are too easy or otherwise stripped down to one aspect. Take the Call of Duty series, for example. I happen to enjoy the repetitive multiplayer, but many people rightly accuse the franchise of being one-dimensional.
Happens to some, doesn't happen to others. I can see where you're getting at, with a portion of the developer community wanting to cater to a casual base - just remember the bitter disappointment that was Spore - but I still think that's a gross generalization. Even then, being stripped down isn't necessarily a bad thing nor does it mean a game is simple in scope - look at Minecraft. The premise is simple enough, theoretically, but the possibilities of gameplay and creation are endless.
But Call of Duty? Screw Call of Duty. For real. Modern Warfare was good, but remaking it a million times adding a couple cinematic explosions here and there is total BS.
I disapprove of games that incorporate songs from real life instead of creating their own soundtrack (except stuff like Guitar Hero where that is the point).
I don't see the problem with that, as long as it works. Many movies do the same thing. Is it written in the stars that games have to have a specially composed soundtrack? I suppose it's personal preference.
And who doesn't like that 8-bitty sound of nostalgia?
My favorite soundtracks are still from the oldest games.
That was what I was trying to say; it seems you said it better. I meant that it's garbage to judge a "lack of originality" for newer games, but such judgements are certainly more common in modern times. I personally agree that it's asking too much to expect a completely new concept. When revolutionary new ideas come about, I'm even more impressed.
they've been ignored due to focus on graphics, music, and gameplay.
I guess that's just a modern trend. It's kind of like getting a new tool or gadget; you feel compelled to use it even if the older tools still work. And some people will adopt the innovation while others prefer tried and true methods.
In all honesty, i think some game series are getting worse, not games in general. A perfect example, in my opinion is the call of duty series. Call of Duty 4 was the peak of the series, then i think it just went downhill, with the exception of MW2, all of the other games after CoD 4 have slouched. But games in general like Saint's Row and Skyrim and things like that are getting better. But certain genres are getting weak.
Sound art and story and controller shape have all improved and they're going to keep going because of the robotics industry carting over all the AIprograming
I know it's lame to say, but games are both a little worse and a little better.
In the old days, there wasn't a vast amount of content in the game, but it took you forever to do anyways. Why? Well, you were bombarded with what to do, part of gaming was deciphering the game. Now-a-days you just have to walk up to something for it to say "Press A To Interact". Which HELPS, but it has seriously dumbed down games has actually created it's own type of 'spam' in games.
New games, have far more content (on average) than the games from long ago. Which, I do appreciate... but I feel games often destroy themselves with having features of the game that aren't really needed.
I personally vote for "Old Games are Better" cause I just see the only 'succesful' games being commercialized games, such as Halo, COD, and all those other Drunken Retard Frat Boy dominated games.
I don't buy games that often, and when I do it is always one that I really like so I don't really know what your going through, but I think game quality is probably going down. It's sad, but true.
games in general are getting better, now certain franchises may be getting worse (SSX for example, SSX on tour is great but the new one, not so much) while other new franchises are getting better/just starting and are awesome.
