Is gaming in a better place than it was a decade ago?

I think the biggest difference to come out of this gen is the growth of the 'GAAS' model. As an idea, and applied properly, I don't have a problem with it being a thing, in fact I welcome it as a way to expand and extend games I'm enjoying. However, some AAA publishers seem intent on using GAAS as a way of incorporating the mobile f2p model into full price titles then labeling it as 'games as a service' when it's not the same thing.

Tafdolphin wrote:I don't think the thread is on fire, really. Cal had a bad take (quelle surprise), and has been called out. Repeatedly. Him changing the goalposts is standard practice (and one of the reasons he was banned from Off Topic).

Business is in business to make a profit. Curious to know which part of that is 'a bad take'..?

Moggy wrote:A better question would have been to look at gaming 20 years ago, things were much different in the late 90s compared to today.

Everything was old and clunky and most things were ugly as sin, and the only reason anyone’s fonder of that generation is because they think that pink glasses are pretty.

Cal wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:I don't think the thread is on fire, really. Cal had a bad take (quelle surprise), and has been called out. Repeatedly. Him changing the goalposts is standard practice (and one of the reasons he was banned from Off Topic).

Business is in business to make a profit. Curious to know which part of that is 'a bad take'..?

Did you read my posts?

Balladeer wrote:

Moggy wrote:A better question would have been to look at gaming 20 years ago, things were much different in the late 90s compared to today.

Everything was old and clunky and most things were ugly as sin, and the only reason anyone’s fonder of that generation is because they think that pink glasses are pretty.

You could still £50 for a game as well, which obviously inflation taken into account, was vastly more expensive than it it is now.

Balladeer wrote:

Moggy wrote:A better question would have been to look at gaming 20 years ago, things were much different in the late 90s compared to today.

Everything was old and clunky and most things were ugly as sin, and the only reason anyone’s fonder of that generation is because they think that pink glasses are pretty.

Balladeer wrote:

Moggy wrote:A better question would have been to look at gaming 20 years ago, things were much different in the late 90s compared to today.

Everything was old and clunky and most things were ugly as sin, and the only reason anyone’s fonder of that generation is because they think that pink glasses are pretty.

So pre 2005: gooseberry fool

2005-now: Not gooseberry fool

2020 onwards: Holy gooseberry fool!

Sounds about right!

Gemini: Ehhh... she doesn’t really do it for me, to be honest. Her glasses definitely don’t!

Manwell Pablo wrote:You could still £50 for a game as well, which obviously inflation taken into account, was vastly more expensive than it it is now.

This is why publishers ‘need’ to add more micro-transactions, natch.

@ Preezy, Moggy

Balladeer wrote:What doesn’t ‘do it’ for you about indie games, Karl?

I've tried to put it into words before and got torn apart so I don't think this will go well for me

I have pretty limited time to play games, so I tend to only put time into experiences I know will tick all my boxes. A new Nintendo game will give me polished, well-tested gameplay; a fresh experience that I can still relate to other games I know I like; some of the best art design & direction of any videogames; ditto for the soundtrack. So then I try to go play an indie game, and I'm sure it's very impressive for a couple of folks in their bedrooms, but it's just not scratching those itches. It'll feel janky to play, the art will seem trite, the autogenerated beepy sound effects will annoy me.

Then inevitably I say that, and someone will pop up and go "You're thinking of bad indie games, try this one!" and I'll put an hour into it and genuinely not be able to tell why it's considered better. I'm actually kind of sad that I can't see what you guys do in those experiences!

I won’t tear you apart, it’s clear you’ve tried enough of them (as long as Celeste’s one of them). I will say that several indie titles tick three of those boxes for me, so I can sit through whatever the fourth is. It’s usually not soundtrack: some of my favourite recent ones have been indie games.

The other thing: indie games tend to be a bit more ‘respectful of your time’/shorter. So even if one doesn’t tick a box, you’ll be able to fit one into the same time slot that does!

But hey, you know what works for you!

You're thinking of bad indie games Karl, you should try the good ones

Balladeer wrote:I won’t tear you apart, it’s clear you’ve tried enough of them (as long as Celeste’s one of them)

Well actually...

(Karl just watched a lets play and wondered why he didn't appreciate the incredibly refined and nuanced gameplay)

((sorry Karl))

(((not sorry)))

Hi OR. I know this has been hard on you but I hope you can forgive me

Seriously though, I know I don't have a complete picture of it, but I really don't think I would like Celeste based on what I saw of it. I don't think the "journey" would really speak to me. I'm the same with Hollow Knight -- I've been told it's all about the mood and aesthetic, but I think its style is trite and ugly so I clearly won't get much out of it.

Perhaps your issues with indie games are in your insistence that they succeed in every single aspect. I think it's exceedingly rare for a game to "tick every box" for me, indie or otherwise (notably both Celeste and Hollow Knight do!), but if a game has exceptionally good gameplay then I'm happy to ignore a lacklustre plot for example. In contrast you say you would not get on with Celeste because of its story, regardless of the actual minute-to-minute gameplay, or you wouldn't like Hollow Knight because of the visuals alone, even if it delivers on very rewarding and satisfying combat and exploration. Audio design is perhaps the strangest to me because in a lot of games audio is not crucial to the experience and they can be played on mute, or with music turned off, or whatever (something that I do a lot on Switch out of practicality rather than anything else).

I'm probably the opposite end of the spectrum in that if a single aspect of a game really appeals to me, I'm very willing to subsist through anything that isn't up to par. For example I didn't actually get on much with Owlboy's gameplay (it's just... there), but I adored the pixel art, so I enjoyed playing it mostly to appreciate the visuals and animation.

A lot of indie gaming is about innovation. You're more likely to have new, novel experiences, but often that can mean less refined experiences, or games where the focus has very much been put into one aspect at the expense of others. I love playing games in that space because I really enjoy the novelty and discovery. That said, every so often a game will come along that delivers both that novelty and refinement in all aspects, and it will put the established industry to shame. That's what Celeste and Hollow Knight are to me.

Karl_ wrote::lol: Hi OR. I know this has been hard on you but I hope you can forgive me

Seriously though, I know I don't have a complete picture of it, but I really don't think I would like Celeste based on what I saw of it. I don't think the "journey" would really speak to me. I'm the same with Hollow Knight -- I've been told it's all about the mood and aesthetic, but I think its style is trite and ugly so I clearly won't get much out of it.

Karl sits in his computer desk watching a stream of Celeste on Twitch, his brow furrowed in concentration. On his desk is a notepad opened to a near blank page with the heading "Notes for Indie Developers".
As the stream progresses, he clutches his pen more tightly. A look of inspiration crosses his face. He looks down and writes in his notepad:
More anime
He watches the stream further, and after a few minutes alters his note:
More anime!

OrangeRKN wrote:...if a single aspect of a game really appeals to me, I'm very willing to subsist through anything that isn't up to par...

Pretty much my approach, too. I can put up with clunky aspects if there are other elements that attract and are enjoyable. I think this idea comes from having played so many genuinely bad games from years ago; in comparison, barely any console game released now is actually bad .

Winckle wrote:Karl sits in his computer desk watching a stream of Celeste on Twitch, his brow furrowed in concentration. On his desk is a notepad opened to a near blank page with the heading "Notes for Indie Developers".
As the stream progresses, he clutches his pen more tightly. A look of inspiration crosses his face. He looks down and writes in his notepad:
More anime
He watches the stream further, and after a few minutes alters his note:
More anime!

Winckle I like how that reads like a Whomp! comic. I am truly the Ronnie of this forum.

You're right of course. I pretend I'm so busy and discerning I don't even have time to give Celeste a proper try, but I'm happy to waste 25-mins-per-episode on My Roommate Is A Cat, so that's clearly bollocks.

I've succeeded in ignoring those battle royale games so I'm happy enough with it. There's been some awesome new games over the last few years, and all the franchise's I like seem to be in good order.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Cal wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:I don't think the thread is on fire, really. Cal had a bad take (quelle surprise), and has been called out. Repeatedly. Him changing the goalposts is standard practice (and one of the reasons he was banned from Off Topic).

Business is in business to make a profit. Curious to know which part of that is 'a bad take'..?

Did you read my posts?

I'm going to take this as a 'Yes, but I can't think of a response.'

A while back we figured out a large part of the alt-right playbook revolves around asking vaguely worded questions that skew the conversation away from any points you may have made.

They really don't like it when you do it back to em though.

Anyway, moving on...