View Topic

I was about 7 years old when I was given my first console: A Nintendo Entertainment System.  My parents had also gotten me a box of games to go with it including Super Mario Bros + Duck Hunt, Super Mario Bros 2-3, Gremlins 2, The Goonies, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and a few others.  I remember loading up the console (and occasionally blowing out the cartridge, as was necessary from time to time) and being really excited with what I was playing...stepping on Goombas, shooting down ducks, getting frustrated with falling down all the goddamn holes, and sharing all of those feelings with friends that played alongside me.

Some short years after, my brother ended up getting a Super Nintendo, and I was introduced to Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past and the game that really kickstarted my gaming habit (due to me going through game after game trying to find it): Final Fantasy Mystic Quest.

In those years the console and PC wars were on a level playing field.  PC games weren't incredibly amazing for the most part (outside of titles like Myst, which actually was pretty awesome), and there really was no Sega Vs. Nintendo since both companies were doing fairly well (although the SNES had a powerhouse of games).  Gaming was actually much simpler a subject since people really only cared about the game itself rather than trivial things.

With each passing year that I see gaming now, I actually really miss those times.

Now instead of people really clamoring on the game because of how it plays, it's more about how beautiful the game looks, or how pretty the soundtrack is.  Does it have good online multiplayer?  Does it have good DLC going for it?  Does it bring any new innovations that set it miles away from its competitors?  Is it a game that Pewdiepie/Markiplier/etc... enjoys?  And don't even get me started on the equally stupid Console Vs. PC war crap that's come about.  Gaming isn't about superiority because of what you play on...it's about playing and enjoying the games that you play...that's all.

I've just never understood this whole mindset that's taken over.  People get legitimately angry in multiplayer, or have actually sent death threats or legitimately killed people over MMOs, publishers/developers have been threatened with boycotts or worse when a game doesn't have good DLC or tries to do something different than normal.  People have actually gone through petitions when a company doesn't do a game the way they wanted.

It's just so confusing to me.  People are perfectly alright with getting a buggy game or a game that's genuinely unfinished (like legitimately there's DLC down the road to finish it).  What happened to the days where the only worry you'd have is saving the princess?  I don't even care about the "political correctness" or "controversial aspect" that some games have...as that's been around for longer than games like Fable have been out (Hello? Duke Nukem anyone? Leisure Suit Larry?).

I don't even understand this whole mindset of buying Season Passes.  You're paying for content that isn't even created yet with the vague promise that it'll be good.  When it does come out, the reaction is lukewarm at best aside from a couple of exceptions, and the trend still continues.  One that comes to mind is Injustice: Gods Among Us.  The Season Pass promised 4 new awesome fighters and some new skins...and they turned out to be Batgirl, Zod, Scorpion and Lobo.  Then for the lulz after the Season Pass was over, they threw in Martian Manhunter and Zatana (fighters people were actually wanting compared to the other 4) for an extra price tag for each.

Likewise, you have Fallout 4 that had a Season Pass that promised access to all upcoming DLC...which boxed Bethesda into a corner and opened them up to wide criticism when the reveal for the DLC made itself known.  One of which I couldn't understand was people comparing FO4's DLC to FO3 and NV.  Let's remember folks, FO3 and NV had no season passes, and were therefore not confined by a singular price point in what they could release.  They were able to release 4-5 story expansions because they weren't confined like FO4 was.  Story expansions in this generation hit about $19.99 per expansion...$24 if the developer deems it expansive enough...and only around $9.99 if they add at most 1-2 hours to the game.  If Fallout 4 didn't box themselves in behind a $29.99 for everything season pass (later $59.99 when they did decide to add more, much to people's chagrin at the new price), then I could understand people getting frustrated at literally $60 dollars worth of content with only 2 story expansions.  However...like I said, they boxed themselves in a corner because of that Season Pass.  There's no way in this day and age you're going to get 4-5 story expansions at $19.99-24.99 each in a $60 expansion.  At best you'd get...well, 2 and 1/2...which is exactly what they're giving (the Vault Tech and Automatron being the half).

But I digress.  I still play games for the sake of playing them.  I still can't for the life of me understand the whole "deeper" process people have with gaming now concerning the trivial natures of everything beyond the actual game itself and what it's presenting.  Sure, the game looks pretty and sounds good, but is it actually fun to play?  Can I get engrossed in the story?  Can I play it without worrying that it's going to glitch out on me?  Those are the only things I think people should be worried about.

But anyways, that's my spiel.  For some of the gamers here on Wintreath, what are your thoughts on the gaming culture/industry as it stands today?

hmm. I joined gaming quite a bit later than many, in part due to when I was born, and how long before my family had a computer, and I've been a PC gamer since the first game I ever got was a RTT game "Ground Control" Wikipedia, Gameplay video. As you can see I never had the same experience of the sublime simplicity of the earlier home gaming systems, like the NES...

I also have a love of micromanagement and complexity, I love games like the paradox strategy games (CK2, EU4, ect...) and games with big wide scope like Mount and Blade, I even like MMOs and have played many in my time...

However, I still see problems with the modern industry like Pengu mentions :-/ I have been seeing people in online servers getting banned more and more, for not being good enough, people getting threats and abuse over honest mistakes... I've also seen a lot of this and similar elitism, and it's never in one direction, the PC gamers think they are better than the consoles, but the XBox players think they are the best... The people who care too much about games think they are the superior players and the people who don't give a crap are just as judgy in reverse. It seems if you're playing multiplayer it's hard to just play to have fun these days.

And of-course it isn't just the players that seem more toxic these days, the industry has been backing itself into many strange corners, like what Pengu mentions with FO4 and it's season pass, the ever increasing price of DLC and the prevalence of micro-transactions (leading to things like the current CS:GO YouTube scandal), on their own they aren't all that bad, but they add up and they provide more room for scandals, rip-offs, and corruption.

I don't think I would call it convoluted, I don't know what it is, gaming has always been competitive, corporate and market dominated, but I don't know, it just seems worse these days.

Don't get me wrong, it's not all bad, not everyone in multiplayer games is obsessive, not every game or company pushes undue amounts of DLC... but I definitely see this unfortunate stuff more... maybe it's just as I've got older I've lost some of my thick skin; or maybe got more cynical. I don't know... I just know that I am not a big fan of the gaming atmosphere anymore.

I rarely engage in multiplayer, apart from the occasional LAN event, and I'm all the happier for it.

I would say I prefer the PC, because you get much smoother frame rates, and the graphics certainly do not hurt, but I love my PS3 and 4 to tiny bits. One nice thing about PC gaming is how much cheaper it actually is to game. Steam sales often crop up, or some ridiculous specials come out on specific games, and then you save quite a bit of money. Sure, you pay a bit extra for the parts to get the smoothest experience with the most demanding settings, but in the long run, it's simply much cheaper.

The reality is that owning all systems is just too expensive, so I prioritise Sony over Microsoft, because Sony tend to make games that appeal to me more, but I don't look down on the Xbox or its community. Competition is precisely what encourages Sony to continue doing things I like.

And I think one problem with DLCs is that some people just don't like the idea to begin with. I can't say I'm thrilled to hear it when a story concludes in a DLC, instead of the game I've already spent money on, but here we come to an oft-overlooked reality: inflation. People don't generally understand the concept of inflation, yet they get angry when games become more expensive. So what is one solution to that? Charge more for DLC and make the DLCs themselves more important.

That said, companies do tend to mess up with said DLC. I mentioned that before my experience with Blood and Wine (and later Hearts of Stone, which I managed to fix simply by verifying my game files and downloading 8MB of files to fix the bug I was experiencing), the last expansion I fully enjoyed was Dragon Age: Origins - Awakening.

Perhaps the companies could simply go on a campaign to explain the realities of inflation, and stop putting themselves in this awkward corner of season passes?

Oh, and I definitely feel like the AAA games of 2007-20011 were better than the AAA games of today, but it might also simply be that I've grown more cynical and critical with age.

I think Laurentus nailed it when it comes to the point of DLC from a company's perspective...in the US at least, the price of a game from a AAA studio has held steady at $60-$70 for the last 12 years now, possibly because we've reached the limits of what a person will pay for a game. I know for me the last time I paid more than $25 for a game was in 2002, when Warcraft III came out. Now a company can easily make double that between the game and DLC. Don't get me wrong though, I like the idea of DLC when it's done right. I remember the late 90s/early 2000s when developers rushed out one game and went on to the next without providing further updates or support...you would have buggy games that would just never get patched, unless the community did an unofficial patch. DLCs have at least fixed that issue and extended the lifetime of many games...Skyrim is still relevant five years later (modding has a bit to do with that too though) and Fallout 3 was a thing for almost 8 years before its successor came to market.

When done right, it's a win-win...though I know it's sometimes just an obvious money grab by companies too.

I don't think the mindset that Pengu mentioned is limited to gaming...death threats have become very common as a response to just about anything that people don't like, and I think that has more to do with society than gaming. In a lot of ways I think we've become an angrier society, much quicker to get pissed off and much harsher in our reactions. To some extent, I also think it has to do with anonymity on the internet, where their actions can't be traced back to their real identity. Blizzard actually tried to tackle this a few years back by essentially requiring use of real names on their forums, but the idea provoked so much opposition they retracted it a few days later. Riot Games has also tried to tackle this through The Tribunal, which allows League of Legends players to review reported incidents and assigns punishments based on their judgement.

I actually think overall gaming is in a good spot though, especially if you look outside of the major studios and franchises. More people are able to make games for cheaper than ever, and that cuts into the power of the studios. I recently bought Stardew Valley, an incredibly cute game that harkens back to Harvest Moon, and it was developed by one person. That's not only good for the people who want to make games, but for the people who buy them too...instead of dealing with one monolithic industry of major companies, you're dealing with any number of companies, small teams, or individuals who aren't cooperating with each other to screw their customers over. It's competition at its best, and that's why I have hope for gaming going forward.

Gaming as a hobby or as an identity is dead.

It's been infiltrated by too many stupid fucks who never gave a shit but wanted to be "cool" once being a "nerd" somehow became "cool".

Gaming is now 100% marketed to the kind of people who wear glasses with neutral lenses or no lenses at all. It's just another tool for signalling one's status as a "nerd". That's probably the same kind of people who actually spend money to have things finish in under a day on F2P mobile games.

The people "playing" Pokemon GO right now are probably much the same ones that made fun of you 4 years ago for playing Pokemon on your DS in public.

The rise of microtransactions, shitty DLC and stupid games made for bads and idiots was inevitable when gaming stopped being an identity and became just another consumer product marketed to the lowest common denominator. The influx of money from people who don't really care beats the amount that can be gained from pizzafaced hardcore gamers who never go out, and yet it is the latter that have the better taste in game.

Even Paradox is giving in. I bought HoI IV and I've never been more disappointed in my life. Stellaris was disappointing too but to a lesser extent. HoI IV is just pants on head retarded. Economy? Trade? Politics? What the fuck is all that? It's all so abstracted that it's almost unplayable.

Nowhere is safe.