Games used to be superior—what changed?
Games used to be superior—what changed?
In my opinion, there were more engaging stories in the past compared to today, especially in the JRPG world. Take Final Fantasy as an example—its narrative has become less compelling over time. For a good mix of story and gameplay, games like Legend of Dragoon and Xenogears worked well, though they shifted focus toward visuals and spectacle. I agree that poor mechanics quickly lose interest; many players have stopped playing them early because they became boring. If the story is decent, it feels more like a visual novel experience. So far, most titles seem to lack depth in storytelling.
This depends on the kinds of games you enjoy (like Doom, Cod, Batman, etc., which I couldn’t even decide because they never caught my interest). The games I’m playing have stayed relatively consistent, though sometimes there are modern twists like “press X to win.” (For instance, Tekken 3 was much better than Tekken 7, with smoother animations and more challenges.) Right now I’m working on running MSX(2) games—demos look great and fit my preferences. They’re actually updated versions released after 2016. So far, the emulator isn’t working, maybe because the ROM is too large or I’m not choosing the right BIOS settings. Emulation isn’t very popular here, but I’m still hoping someone can help. P.S. I tried another emulator and got a bit closer… but I’m still stuck…? ...what now!? o.o
Around 2011 publishers and developers realized you could either repeatedly replay a game or turn it into a long-term live service with microtransactions, often combining both approaches. Your perspective hasn’t changed much. 1. COD remains available. 2. Town/city planner features still exist (Anno 2070 vs Cities Skylines). 3. Single-player RPGs are still supported (Skyrim, Batman vs Dying Light). 4. If FIFA returns to Steam in 2011, it would likely appear among the top sellers. And don’t think 2011 was the peak of gaming history.
Naraka offers a solid experience with its mix of samurai themes and action sequences. The fast-paced combat and unique weapons keep things engaging. However, the live-action style can be distracting, especially when it interrupts gameplay with mechanics like seasonal rewards. Many modern games use similar approaches, which is why some players prefer more traditional formats.
What transpired was mostly about rose-colored lenses. Most gaming shifts haven’t altered much, except advancements in technology opened up fresh possibilities. (I played before most of this chat even considered itself ahead, so I’m a bit old—accept it.) The notable changes were: the Internet spread widely and quickly enough for practical use. Back in the 90s and early 2000s, using a 56K modem meant you couldn’t download big game updates because they’d take days. Everything needed to function properly or it wouldn’t be released. There were even big recalls of games at stores to fix obvious problems discovered after launch. The web enabled more interactive multiplayer experiences than ever before. And with graphics improving, things started to shift. Still, overall? Not much has changed. There are still solid games people enjoy. There are also some super annoying ones that get played. It’s been this way for a long time. So, life moves on—just adapt. If you don’t like a game, skip it. Done and done.
R6S was my preferred choice after Battlefield 4 for several years (2018-2020 or so). The lockdown and shift to Zoom meetings gave me extra free time. I was familiar with the maps and operator choices on certain stages. Now, I recall them faintly... many new operators were added, and gun mechanics were revised—essentially forcing me to start over, which often leads to frustration. Battlefield 4 was a favorite of mine; I loved all the maps, expansions, and vehicle setups. It’s a much better game than Battlefield 1. After reaching maximum rank and unlocking everything, I’d enjoy playing tanks on Golmud Railway to disrupt operations. Battlefield 2042 presents a steep learning curve, with new content and upgraded weapons like the M16A3 and AK-74u. It seems they release updates regularly, so there’s always something new. Playing with 128 players can be chaotic, and I sometimes get frustrated against experienced opponents. War of the Worlds has always been fun for me. Unlocking more tanks by exploring other tech paths would be rewarding, though improving my stats in-game is more personal. Some battles are enjoyable, while others make me want to quit. I’ve tried Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order—great single-player experience with solid storytelling and tough boss fights. Boss mechanics can be tricky after learning new skills, so I sometimes forget the right controls. Tomb Raider is something I’d consider purchasing for later. Minecraft (with mods) is another favorite, though it consumes a lot of time and distracts from other games. It offers endless possibilities but requires patience. I often face a choice between games that demand long sessions versus those that fit better into my schedule.
As discussed, the situation is only partially accurate... DLCs, paying to win, seasonal perks, etc., have significantly changed game development today. While you can still enjoy games without all these features, the options are limited—especially for online play. I personally tried Warzone; the gameplay was decent, but they constantly push "rewards" that require payment or are hard to obtain. This made me quit quickly. I understand needing effort, but I prefer a clear path with choices that let me act freely without relying on loot boxes, at least.
These titles vary significantly... Even though they share a similar category or series, they aren't identical. I’d pick MW3 every time instead of MWII – dedicated servers, no MTX, playable offline, no season passes and those kinds of issues. This style doesn’t really catch my attention but each has its advantages and disadvantages. They’re truly distinct! The Batman Arkham games offer open-world superhero action, Dying Light 2 is a survival horror experience, Skyrim is a fantasy RPG adventure, Bully is a unique multiplayer game, Saints Row 3 brings a different vibe, Total War Shogun 2 stands out. All of these are solid choices. As for the rest: MW3 offers decent single-player but multiplayer is solid. Assassin's Creed Revelations isn’t terrible, though the earlier titles in the Ezio series were superior. The remaining games on the list aren’t something I’m drawn to. For now, Skyrim, Batman Arkham City, and Bully are the stronger picks compared to what I’ve tried.
Focus on team play works better. Single-player options fall short for various reasons.
This post was a broad statement, but JRPGs often center on narrative, spanning eras. My experience with the main Final Fantasy titles has been limited—peaking around 12 and 13, but missing 15 entirely. 7R feels better suited for viewing rather than playing, as it’s now a film. Despite expectations, I doubt 16 will change that direction. I appreciate the city-building simulation aspect and don’t see it declining. Cities Skylines stands out as the genre’s peak. I’ve played the original Sim City back in the early '90s; it handles its issues well without rigid storytelling. The visual improvements enhance immersion, but core mechanics remain strong. More technological advances enable richer simulations. Anno isn’t really part of this style since it leans toward competitive or combat-focused gameplay, fitting more into RTS or 4X categories.