Too many games now?

Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum

Help Support Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

ardour

Well known loser
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
5,558
Reaction score
1,360
Location
New Zealand
File this one under ‘First World problems’ but does anyone else feel there have been an excessive number of major releases in the role playing genre over the last few years?

Back in the late 90’s and early 2000s it seemed like there were maybe 1 or 2 major games on the PC or consoles over a year. Now the market’s flooded with sequels, remakes and heavily modded/expanded versions of older games.

Just in 2014/15, Dragon Age: Inquisition, Witcher 3, Pillars of Eternity, Divinity: Original Sin - all apparently ‘must play’ 60+ hour titles. And on the horizon: Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, Fallout 4, Final Fantasy 15, Persona 5, even a Final Fantasy 7 remake…
 
I don't think it's surprising given how popular video games are now. Players are buying, and they're not just buying one title or one style of game. So developers make them because that's where the money is, and everyone capable of programming, game art, or other contributions wants a slice of that pie.

However, I don't play most of them.
 
It's all for money. The fact that most games are now ported for PC as well as console, and the fact that many of the older games are being ported to PC... Money. To make money, more specifically. I saw the first Tomb Raider for 10 cents on the Google app store for goodness' sake... Ten cents! I was befuddled.
 
Well yeah, profit imperative in a growing market across all platforms. The consumer base might be expanding, but each individual's time isn't, especially when you consider the average age of gamers is 29 ('Too much choice' is, again, very much a First World 'problem').

It's annoying because there's a time and money investment required to find out if you even like something and want to continue playing. Now it's a matter of picking 1 or 2, ignoring all the other candidates. I remember when games used to have 2-5 year production and play test cycles.

An example is the Dark Souls sequel and spinoff - 3 games in as many years with another in the works.
 
ardour said:
Well yeah, profit imperative in a growing market across all platforms. The consumer base might be expanding, but each individual's time isn't, especially when you consider the average age of gamers is 29 ('Too much choice' is, again, very much a First World 'problem').

It's annoying because there's a time and money investment required to find out if you even like something and want to continue playing. Now it's a matter of picking 1 or 2, ignoring all the other candidates. I remember when games used to have 2-5 year production and play test cycles.

An example is the Dark Souls sequel and spinoff - 3 games in as many years with another in the works.

I don't see it as a problem at all, really. There's many millions of books released per year. No one reads them all. Quite a few of them are terrible, rushed, self-published releases to make a quick buck on top of that.

The downside to having one or two big titles was that if you didn't like it... tough. You went to trade it in at the local game store and hoped one of their dozen titles on your console would be better because a friend mentioned it, back when there was no YouTube to peek at gameplay mechanics on.
 
Tealeaf said:
I don't see it as a problem at all, really. There's many millions of books released per year. No one reads them all. Quite a few of them are terrible, rushed, self-published releases to make a quick buck on top of that.

The downside to having one or two big titles was that if you didn't like it... tough. You went to trade it in at the local game store and hoped one of their dozen titles on your console would be better because a friend mentioned it, back when there was no YouTube to peek at gameplay mechanics on.

On the other hand, it could be argued the shorter production cycles along with demands to appeal to a broader range of consumers means less creative energy going into each game.

Re Dragon Age: Inquisition. Apparently completing the non-essential content makes no difference to the game world or endings, sort of like poorly thought through filler.
 
ardour said:
Tealeaf said:
I don't see it as a problem at all, really. There's many millions of books released per year. No one reads them all. Quite a few of them are terrible, rushed, self-published releases to make a quick buck on top of that.

The downside to having one or two big titles was that if you didn't like it... tough. You went to trade it in at the local game store and hoped one of their dozen titles on your console would be better because a friend mentioned it, back when there was no YouTube to peek at gameplay mechanics on.

On the other hand, it could be argued the shorter production cycles along with demands to appeal to a broader range of consumers means less creative energy going into each game.

Re Dragon Age: Inquisition. Apparently completing the non-essential content makes no difference to the game world or endings, sort of like poorly thought through filler.

There were terrible games in the 80's, 90's, and 2000's. No one talks about them because they're not nostalgic. No news there. For every Ocarina of Time, there was a Quest 64.
 
I sometimes feel the same now that I am in college. I am currently trying to gain a job and worry about all of the games that I would like to play at some point down the road. For example, I have played Fallout 3, and, while I would love to play more of the game, I only made it as far as this abandoned mall with bandits in it. (those who played the game will know what I'm talking about) Just from being outside in the small amount of time that I have played it, I just know the game is going to be one huge timesink, hence why I am afraid to go any further - if something comes up that demands my attention, I may have to put the game down for a period of time so long that, by the time I come back to it, it can be hard to remember what was going on and what I have to do next in the game.

As a matter of fact, the above is what turns me off from RPGs in general - if it weren't for the leveling that some of the games in the genre required, I might not be as intimidated by the genre as I am.
 
I like having a big choice, but it's a bigger challenge picking games that interest me now. Much easier back in the 1990s and 2000s.
 
I think 'Back in the day' it wasn't as easy to create games, there was a lot of license and technical issues only the most serious companies would undertake, partly to make a good game and partly for profit. These days things are different and practically any individual can roll of a game in a matter of weeks using the right software and generic features.

Another point is before the 90's/00's they were pretty limited (graphics wise) so the other means to keep players playing was to create a really playable game, games made after this kinda fell at the right time because it's a mixture of really good game-play and graphics. But now it's kinda swung the other way; there's less game-play and more graphics, but that's to some people's preference I suppose.
 
I believe the success of World of Warcraft has made the fantasy rpg popular the last decade or so, there is also way too many first person shooters, the lack of variety anymore in gaming stinks.
 
Tealeaf said:
ardour said:
Tealeaf said:
I don't see it as a problem at all, really. There's many millions of books released per year. No one reads them all. Quite a few of them are terrible, rushed, self-published releases to make a quick buck on top of that.

The downside to having one or two big titles was that if you didn't like it... tough. You went to trade it in at the local game store and hoped one of their dozen titles on your console would be better because a friend mentioned it, back when there was no YouTube to peek at gameplay mechanics on.

On the other hand, it could be argued the shorter production cycles along with demands to appeal to a broader range of consumers means less creative energy going into each game.

Re Dragon Age: Inquisition. Apparently completing the non-essential content makes no difference to the game world or endings, sort of like poorly thought through filler.

There were terrible games in the 80's, 90's, and 2000's. No one talks about them because they're not nostalgic. No news there. For every Ocarina of Time, there was a Quest 64.

Not to mention the literal THOUSANDS of unlicensed NES games, well before the N64.
I'd say for every good game, there was more of like 10 bad games. And it gradually got less as time went on; to the point now I'd personally say it's lower than it's ever been.
(Correct me if I'm wrong though).
 

Latest posts

Back
Top