Have games lost their way? 57 replies

Please wait...


I didn't make it!

0 XP

#1 11 years ago

I am a gamer, i play alot of the newer games, and i am starting to see a pattern appearing, each game, is getting slightly better graphics, a tiny tweak on an over used gameplay style, and the game is alot shorter. I remember playing KKND, a 15 year old game now, completely 2D, and i could play for hours apon hours, with or without friends, is this just me or is the future of games looking bleek.

I think gamers are not looking for more and more extreme games, but games which are extremely realistc, we play games to see things we cannot possibly experience, but that has been lost in these years where corporates create games purely for profit.

The Next generation of games is a step back, we have lost the vision and the point of games itself, when we begin to truelly believe that what we are seeing in a game is possible and true, then we have achieved something no level of graphical enhancement could ever.

Is this just me, or are games going down in quality?

Mastershroom Advanced Member

Frag Out!

153,685 XP

18th November 2004

0 Uploads

14,196 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago

I think you have a point; there's definitely a huge trend for games that are as realistic as possible, e.g. Crysis. Not that Crysis had terrible gameplay, but it was clear that the developers were going for graphics rather than content.

That said, there's still no shortage of awesome games among the new ones. Team Fortress 2, for example...graphics look like something you might expect from the original Xbox, but its gameplay is some of the best multiplayer fun I've ever had.

Also, :moved: to General Gaming.


I didn't make it!

0 XP

#3 11 years ago

True, and im a personal fan of Team Fortress 2, but, Team Fortress 2 is just one of a select few games which is considered 'Good', even by todays standards.


I didn't make it!

0 XP

#4 11 years ago

Games these days are for shit. Originality is hard to come by, today its more often then not, clones of clones.

Antilles Advanced Member

The Imaginative

114,277 XP

17th July 2006

0 Uploads

9,726 Posts

1 Threads

#5 11 years ago

It all depends in what you look for in a game. From some people, sure, they might have. but for others, they could see games at the top of their game *Pun intended* right now.

I mean if your looking for graphics, games are defiantly going that way. If your looking for Content, you just have to be picky on your games, there are good ones out there. And if your looking for one with both, well thats rare. But they do happen. Like I said, all depends on what you want, and your style of gaming.



Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago

You can't use the games have gone complex on graphics/physics/effects and simple on story and gameplay statement as a rule of thumb though. Case in point, once in a while you see a game like Arma 2, which goes all out in trying to achieve complex gameplay and mission scenarios, but has fairly so so graphics and is riddled with odd bugs.

You also have some unique games like Call of Juarez that combine pretty good graphics with a great story and excellent and unique gameplay. Sure many have gone to the wayside favoring eyecandy over more substantial elements, but there's still enough hunger for the core of what makes games good that developers have to take note.

MrFancypants Forum Administrator

The Bad

218,534 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,055 Posts

11 Threads

#7 11 years ago

Devlopers are trying to make money and apparently the best selling games are short games with no story but nice graphics. With ever increasing development costs for the latest engines and the piracy issue we also have to pay more - for less.

At least we're getting close to the point where improving graphics is simply too expensive. Then developers can just buy a good-looking standard engine and spent their money on AI, story, music and gameplay. But even then the majority of the customers will want short-term entertainment rather than the hardcore games of old.

Junk angel

Huh, sound?

166,880 XP

29th January 2007

0 Uploads

15,678 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago

I have to agree that games these days seem to generally focus more on looks and bang than anything else.

I guess I still consider sort of the golden age of games to be something like 95-01 or so. Definitely most of my favs lie in that time period.

Zipacna Advanced Member


44,194 XP

11th January 2008

0 Uploads

4,271 Posts

57 Threads

#9 11 years ago

I have to agree with you... (except KotOR ;) ) I played Republic Commando and thought "Now I'm gonna get the other guy back and finally see a real fight... what are the credits doing there on my screen?" And I must say... I'm still looking for a nice merger between strategy and RPG... They try to merge all kinds of game concepts, why not that one? -.-

The real problem is (well, at least I think it is) that the graphics get better that fast nowadays that the teams care more about good graphics than about story... if it takes them too long to produce a good story, their graphics won't be up to date...


Serio Advanced Member

The Dane

149,972 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,513 Posts

38 Threads

#10 11 years ago

Developers are being pressured into rushing their games by the publishers. Some publishers are worse than others, but others give a lease to the developers. If you stop and take a look, the developers that publish their own games(Valve, Bethesda, to some degree Activision) tend to have more content in their games.

DarthZipacnaThe real problem is (well, at least I think it is) that the graphics get better that fast nowadays that the teams care more about good graphics than about story... if it takes them too long to produce a good story, their graphics won't be up to date...

That's why some games use freshened up old engines. They don't take as long as to upgrade, and they allow a small team to focus on the engine while the rest of them focus on the story and gameplay.