my thoughts on modern gaming

[gbpxl]

The last time I bought a game that had just come out was Shovel Knight in 2014, and before that it was Halo 4 in 2013. I currently do not own any console newer than the GameCube.

The first time I really felt myself being turned off with a modern console was probably some time in 2010 when I was playing either Gran Turismo 5 Prologue or Gran Turismo 5. I was completely blown away by how bad the loading times were. The install times themselves were absolutely ridiculous. I don't understand what is so hard about making a game where I can insert a disc and be playing within 60 seconds.

The other game that I really noticed having problems with was Grand Theft Auto IV. I tried very hard to enjoy the game but I felt the cars controlled poorly and it seemed like the camera didn't want to follow me as I turned. The physics were awful and graphics very bland and washed out. I was a huge fan of the PS2 GTAs and 4 was a huge letdown.

I don't think I even have to talk about downloadable content. I wasn't one of the people that bought the $5 horse armor in Oblivion but I did pay for the expansion packs. Companies want to nickel and dime us to death.

With the advent of companies like Facebook and Google, I feel like we are constantly being spied on. It is very difficult (impossible?) to buy a new console in 2018 and start playing a game without any sort of internet connection. There are times when I don't feel like I want someone watching me.

Are games made in 2018 going to be collectable or sought after in 2028 or 2038? The companies will no longer be supporting these games, so if internet connection is required, these games are going to end up in the landfill. What a waste.

Too much attention is focused on online play. Some of us prefer to play solo without hearing racist insults being leveled at others.

It's no wonder retro games have seen a resurgence. A game like Kirby's Adventure is final; no updating required, no internet connection required, no tutorials, and you can start playing almost instantly.

so yeah long story short, gaming for me died with the 6th generation

[gbpxl]

the other thing about current games becoming collectible is this- once you transfer a game onto your hard drive, is there any useful purpose for the game disc afterwards or is it basically an empty shell at that point? videogamecritic.com had a review for the new consoles and was kinda talking about this- I don't know anything about PS4/Xbone/Switch games

[kupomogli]

Unfortunately most games aren't complete as you purchase them. Whether it's patches, DLC, whatever. As a collector, you have to judge whether to skip out on games for that very reason or purchase them wondering if there's going to be a more complete release later on. However, very few games are online only or even required.

Payday 2 got recently released on the Switch and if you were to buy Payday 2 The Big Score on the PS4 and Xbox One, or even Payday 2 on the Switch, it's an online co op game(or offline co op for the Switch) with 55 different missions. If you decide to play solo though, there's nothing stopping you from completing any mission in the game even on harder difficulties. Your ally AI is good enough, about the only thing they don't do is assist you in carrying bags or doing any of the objectives. The reason I mention this game though is that I do feel that even though this game is a multiplayer experience, once the servers are done, the single player experience will still be able to carry this game along, and as I said before, the Switch has offline co op provided you have four Switch consoles.

Now I grew up starting with the Atari 2600/NES in my household, but I honestly think that gaming is better than it's ever been. A lot of people get it in their head that classic gaming is better because there were no patches, games were complete, and we're well aware of all the quality games back then, but do you know how many games were absolute trash? Additionally, what do games like the early Mega Man games, Super Castlevania 4, and many other games, including popular ones have in common? Lots of screen glitches, slowdown, etc. Secret of Mana not only had framerate issues but it had many gameplay issues, and argue as you might that this stuff was intentional, if not for the great music and graphics, it wouldn't have been worth touching as the gameplay was a very mediocre experience. Metal Gear Solid 3 on the PS2 never rose above 20fps. There are lots of issues for varying different games across consoles.

On the plus side, even at launch, many games today are atleast solid 30fps on consoles. Secret of Mana which had slowdown is 60fps for the remake on the PS4(Vita runs like crap though I've heard.) It's rare that games are constantly crashing, but one that comes to mind is LBP3 which crashed six times before I made it out of the first world, and that's after all of the patches. Now days it's honestly most publishers of indie games that could and should run fine on the console that run worse than the AAA titles. THQNordic is a pretty notable one to look towards with games that generally run like ass, from both Darksiders 1 and 2, to nearly every single indie release they've published that I've played, that being said they also have a decent amount of quality releases.

Now there's one genre that I still adore, but is pretty terrible now days, and that's JRPGs. There are also some gameplay styles that excelled in the past that are now missing here as well, but overall, there's a far greater variety in the gaming space today. Now honestly, we can think indie developers alongside the larger publishers. The larger publishers are always going to go for the casual audience, so the games will unfortunately be catered to them. However, many of the smaller publishers and many indie developers have created a variety of experiences that push the gaming space further than it's ever been. There's still your large amount of trash titles, but that's usually digital only(even though there's also digital only games that are excellent.) Honestly though, most games that you can find at retail are guaranteed to be atleast better than a large majority of the past gen releases.

I purchase anything that interests me and I sell it off if it doesn't hold a certain amount of quality. In my collection, other than the rare release(not actually rare, just it's uncommon that I keep a bad game) that I don't feel I can get rid of, I like to only keep what I consider good games in my collection, so I'll sell off anything that I feel isn't. I also don't buy any online game. I purchased Warhammer Vermintide for example because I didn't realize it was online only, found out sometime later and it's in the smallest text on the back of the box, and despite the fact that I still haven't played it, I sold it. I've only purchased one online game, Destiny, and after I was bored with it in less than a week, was pretty much a coaster, so if it's online only I won't even play them. With all of that being said, I still own over 150 PS4 games. I also buy retail only.

Games like..

Hotline Miami, a stealth/action based murder simulator where you go for a high score.
Furi. A fast paced melee action game combined with the likes of a twin stick shooter.
Has-Been Heroes. A true hidden gen of this generation. Looks stupid and is simple to play, but the amount of underlying depth and strategy has it being my most played on the PS4 to date.
Overcooked. A time management cooking game. You have to work efficiently and effectively to get orders out quickly and correct without setting the kitchen on fire.
N++. A very minimalist platformer with thousands of stages. Unfortunately there's a patch to double the content to 4000 stages. Sad we didn't get the complete version but ehhh, it's still 2000 stages and you can create your own.
Divinity Original Sin. One of the best WRPGs I've played in a long time, better than a lot of the classics even.
Bloodborne. Nightmare Creatures is one of my favorite action games on the PS1, and while there is none(yet, did you guys hear someone is rebooting the franchise) on the PS4 there's still the amazing Bloodborne and Dark Souls series.
This is the Police. A visual novel with light strategy elements. You're a 60 year old police chief nearing retirement. It's a simple game, but there's so many underlying statistics, some slight RNG with your officers, making the mayor's office happy, making the mafia happy, and your goal is to obtain $500,000 by the end of 180 days when you're forced to retire without being put in prison or murdered.
Dragon Quest Heroes. The first game, not the second, is a RPG/Dynasty Warriors/Tower Defense mix. Now I hate Dynasty Warriors, the series is pretty garbage, but the way it's done in Dragon Quest Heroes and the tower defense style of it has you warping back and forth between different areas of the map, making sure that each area isn't overrun, it makes a much better experience than any of the other games. The second game is a bit worse than this one, but atleast has some difficulty to it making it again a bit better than the rest. The only one I like even a little bit after these games, is the first Fist of the North Star Ken's Rage.
Yakuza 0, Kiwami, and undoubtedly 6. Yakuza is an "open world franchise" unlike the open world games that you generally think of. Unlike Ubisoft's open world games, the quests in Yakuza all have some sort of storyline to each of them. The game has a ridiculous amount of activities that you can take part in. Then the single player storyline is always some of the best writing and storyline in gaming. You want to take a break with the main quest and do some side quests, you can, you want to just sit back and play Space Harrier, Outrun, or Super Hang On to try and top(and admittedly fail) the leaderboards, you can, you want to play a game of Shogi, Mahjong, and a lot of other western and Japanese gambling games where the AI are cheating a**holes, you can do that too. And that's just scratching the surface. The game is a beat em up with a great storyline and tons to do.

Just like I only scratched the surface with all Yakuza has to offer, this list only scratches the surface of all the PS4 has to offer. These games really just show a minimal amount of variety that the console has.

[Gameguy]

the other thing about current games becoming collectible is this- once you transfer a game onto your hard drive, is there any useful purpose for the game disc afterwards or is it basically an empty shell at that point? videogamecritic.com had a review for the new consoles and was kinda talking about this- I don't know anything about PS4/Xbone/Switch games

PC games have always pretty much been this way, you could fully install the game on a hard drive and never need the disks/discs again. There's still something appealing about owning a legit copy of a game if possible. I will say that modern PC games are still interesting, far more than any modern console games besides portables.

I don't really have much time to play games too often anymore so I haven't kept up with many modern releases, I'll try to when I can but I usually just stick to my older games when I do have time. Pure technical advancement doesn't impress me, I don't care how much better a game looks or runs now compared to older hardware. Or every modern movie would automatically be better than every older movie ever made, just because better equipment and effects are available to make them now. The finished product as a whole is what impresses me, if it's fun and enjoyable and by how much.

As for whether or not games will still be collectibles in the future, who knows at this point. It's more about if people will still care about them in the future or if they'll be forgotten, not so much if they're still fully working. Few people collect antiques like tools to actually use them in a practical sense, collecting games might just keep changing compared to what it's like now. Or it might end up like fine china, a newer generation just stops caring about it so the value drops to almost nothing.

[WulfeLuer]

I agree that a lot of modern games will wind up as little more than curiosities for the physical copies, with the odd passion project hack to make something run on the Playstation 63 1/3 or PADD or whatever the new tech is in a decade. I can't claim I bought very many games within a couple months of release in the last decade, except for Borderlands 2 and Diablo III (and later Reaper of Souls). I've always had a struggle keeping current since a 'new' console for me has a hard time competing with the absolutely ridiculous amount of ps1 and ps2 JRPGs I can snag for half the price tag. JRPGs: Proof that once you start down the dork path, forever will it dominate your money's destiny.

I have an odd relationship with DLC and microtransactions. If a game I love comes along, I tend to throw money at it (Borderlands 2, World of Tanks hoo boy World of Tanks) or if I can only get something secondhand I buy a little bit as sort of half apology half tip to the devs. But outside of the two examples I don't feel the virtual collector's craze and I really don't like some of the more predatory tactics out there. especially chopped out game parts as DLC or pay-to-win.

I think when it comes down to it is that in the not so distant future a lot of games are going to be unplayable, and while there is a lot of crap out there, good games, even great games are going to disappear. I mean, you can still run a cart-based game or anything before ps3/360 or so since all you need is the game and the console (usually anyway), but just about anything from current times? I know it's more-or-less repeating the OP but that's what's going to happen, and I think its kinda sad.

[Aussie2B]

These reasons among others is why I've gravitated toward handhelds these last two gens. I still have a Wii, 360, PS4, and Xbox One, but the number of games I have for those and amount of time I've spent playing them is a tiny fraction compared to what I have and have put into my PSP, DS, 3DS, and Vita. When I pop in a Vita card, sure, it installs some data (mostly so that it has a bubble for the game on the menu whether the game is inserted or not), but the vast majority of data is run directly off the physical copy while playing. I can also easily put my Vita in flight mode if I want to keep it offline. The types of games available for these handhelds are more similar to the games I love from the 80s and 90s, and they offer full single-player, offline experiences.

[mailman187666]

I think the only thing that I dislike about current gen gaming is that everything is a re-release. I just can't get very excited about games I already own coming out again and again with updated graphics. I feel like it's a big scam and the developers are all just laughing at how stupid the general gaming public is for re-purchasing games that they have already purchased. If I were to buy something like the new Smash Bros for switch, I'd sell my Wii U version and put the money towards the switch version (which I did with Mario Kart 8). It just doesn't feel worth it to me otherwise. The only exception in my opinion is games like Ocarina of Time on the 3DS mostly due to being able to play the game in 3D, or if it's a souped up version of a rare/expensive game that I otherwise wouldn't buy or play due to it being expensive or hard to find. A remake would have to be built from the ground up, or just be something I've never played the first time around for it to catch my interest. The Uncharted: Nathan Drake collection comes to mind mostly because I never played them on PS3...but I found it used for $5 so it was a no brainer on that one.

That being said, I actually love my PS4 and the Switch is coming along nicely as well. I feel like I should have skipped the xbox one altogether this generation, because I haven't even turned the thing on in over a year.

[kupomogli]

I think the only thing that I dislike about current gen gaming is that everything is a re-release. I just can't get very excited about games I already own coming out again and again with updated graphics. I feel like it's a big scam and the developers are all just laughing at how stupid the general gaming public is for re-purchasing games that they have already purchased. If I were to buy something like the new Smash Bros for switch, I'd sell my Wii U version and put the money towards the switch version (which I did with Mario Kart 8). It just doesn't feel worth it to me otherwise. The only exception in my opinion is games like Ocarina of Time on the 3DS mostly due to being able to play the game in 3D, or if it's a souped up version of a rare/expensive game that I otherwise wouldn't buy or play due to it being expensive or hard to find. A remake would have to be built from the ground up, or just be something I've never played the first time around for it to catch my interest. The Uncharted: Nathan Drake collection comes to mind mostly because I never played them on PS3...but I found it used for $5 so it was a no brainer on that one.

I'm with you on this. People act like I'm biased against the Switch because I'm bashing it for being 98% ports, but I was bashing on the PS4 alongside everyone else. The only people defending the Switch being mass ports though is the die hard Nintendo fanboys who have never owned another publishers console in their life though and would probably sacrifice their first born child if Miyamoto commanded it. I own 166 games on the PS4 as of right now(that I plan to keep,) and my collection consists of 37 remasters. To be fair, there are some of these I didn't own, some of these were rumored and announced prior to their release on last gen consoles, and some of them have major improvements and/or include all the DLC, but even so, damn. I just counted and didn't realize that I had so many in my collection, nearly one fourth of my PS4 library. One fourth sounds pretty large sure, but if you think about it, I still own 129 games that I'm planning to keep that have never made it to retail on any other past console.

After the second year of the PS4 and Xbox One, there's been fewer and fewer ports and rereleases from most developers. Hopefully it ends with Nintendo as well, but it just seems like it's even worse for that company after they released their first remaster and saw how many people will go out and rebuy their games that they've went all in with remasters and ports. This latest Nintendo Direct was either games we already knew about, or 3DS and Switch ports of past games. It's like. Damn Nintendo, I already feel robbed purchasing a Wii U in the first place, leave some exclusives for the damn system.

Pure technical advancement doesn't impress me, I don't care how much better a game looks or runs now compared to older hardware. Or every modern movie would automatically be better than every older movie ever made, just because better equipment and effects are available to make them now. The finished product as a whole is what impresses me, if it's fun and enjoyable and by how much.

This statement seems more like you're just stuck in the past. It's not just pure technical advancement. Many of these indie games could probably run on the PS1, even a lot of larger Japanese publishers are PS3 or even PS2 quality releases. Also just because a game looks great, doesn't mean that it can't be a quality game. When it comes to gameplay, Metal Gear Solid 5 is the best in the series, and while it's bloated with content and probably would have been better without being open world, it's one of the few open world games this gen that does open world gaming right. The Last of Us looks amazing, and is imo the best stealth game ever released, the game has a quality multiplayer added onto it as well. The Last of Us is such a great game that Capcom decided to rip it off with Resident Evil Revelations 2(they failed of course.) Bloodborne and Dark Souls 3 could look like sh** and still be great games, but they also look amazing as well. Throwing out "pure technical advancement," sounds more like you're blindly bashing newer stuff just because it's new.

As I said in my previous post, how many shit games are there on the NES, SNES, Genesis, etc. There's a lot of trash among all of those consoles, infact there's stuff so bad that atleast in the retail market on current gen consoles, nothing even comes close to comparing. Almost all games that are released today on the retail market are on average better than half the 8 and 16bit libraries. Praise past gen titles as much as you want, we all know there was also a lot of crap. Granted there was a lot of great games as well, but acting like past gen is superior because limited graphics is just as bad as me being an elitist(which I have no problems admitting.)

[Edmond Dantes]

With the advent of companies like Facebook and Google, I feel like we are constantly being spied on. It is very difficult (impossible?) to buy a new console in 2018 and start playing a game without any sort of internet connection. There are times when I don't feel like I want someone watching me.

I dunno about this, but it reminded me of when I'll be watching someone else's review or lets play and during gameplay a thing will pop up saying "So-and-so is online!" And I'm like... people are seriously fine with this?

To me there's nothing worse than being interrupted while gaming. I am not a good multitasker, and trying to carry a conversation while kicking the crap out of Dr. Wily is NOT what I want to be doing, and I sure as hell don't care if so-and-so is online while I'm in the middle of a very tense session. (I also wonder about the video uploaders and why they're fine revealing who their contacts are to the entire world).

So like, why would you even want this? Is there a way to turn this off?

On that note I've heard some multiplayer games don't even have LOCAL multiplayer--you absolutely have to be online even if you have two controllers and two players on the same couch. Which that is just lame.

The main thing that's kept me out of modern gaming is its become a rich man's world. You have to be the kind of guy who can afford thousand-dollar televisions, entertainment setups, $100/mo internet connections with no bandwidth limits or data caps, on top of the consoles and games themselves, or you're SOL. Even at the current collector prices, even Earthbound isn't anywhere near that big a damper on my wallet.

[kupomogli]

On that note I've heard some multiplayer games don't even have LOCAL multiplayer--you absolutely have to be online even if you have two controllers and two players on the same couch. Which that is just lame.

Many of these are also games that wouldn't have ever been multiplayer back then. With co op games like adventure games, first person shooters, third person shooters, etc, unless the players are stuck on the same screen, multiplayer wouldn't have even been considered. Think about it. How many first person and third person shooters in the past have had multiplayer pvp, but no co op multiplayer? Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Armored Core, etc. The reason these games can't produce multiplayer during co op, is that they have to stream all the graphics twice while the AI not only has to direct specific commands, but would have to direct these commands against multiple players which would put even more of a strain. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark run at 20fps as it is.

Games like Diablo 3 can run multiplayer on the same console because the characters are restricted to the same screen, just like Secret of Mana did on the SNES(and look how poorly Secret of Mana ran,) just like the Tales games do on all consoles, etc. Bloodborne as a co op game can't. This same game on the PS1, PS2, etc, wouldn't even have been in multiplayer. Any open area adventure games that aren't top down that have split screen co op? How about King's Field, how about Shadow Tower, these are also From Software games. Or Armored Core 4 and For Answer have co op multiplayer, but it's online only, how many Armored Core games on the PS1 and PS2 can you play co op, not just pvp? Some games though do have same screen co op multiplayer. Resident Evil 5 and 6, however the screen area is reduced to about 66% each with the remainder being blacked out. Any co op Resident Evil games on the PS1 and PS2? Oh, there's Outbreak(which is one of my favorite Resident Evil titles) but oh noes, you can't play multiplayer on a single console, imagine that. Who would have thought that a 3D action adventure game is going to have such a difficult time playing multiplayer on the same console. Anyone with common sense.

The main thing that's kept me out of modern gaming is its become a rich man's world. You have to be the kind of guy who can afford thousand-dollar televisions, entertainment setups, $100/mo internet connections with no bandwidth limits or data caps, on top of the consoles and games themselves, or you're SOL. Even at the current collector prices, even Earthbound isn't anywhere near that big a damper on my wallet.

That's anything modern. When the SNES was modern games were more expensive than they are now, and most hourly wages were less. When the N64 and PS1 were modern, N64 prices were ridiculous, although PS1 games were $50 each, so were Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube, and Xbox games. That being said, the minimum wage has increased since that time, so games are essentially cheaper now days still. Game prices also drop pretty quick if you want the purchases to be affordable. Waiting for the gen to end and then purchasing the games used at that time is the cheapest by far, but if you were to collect SNES games now days you'll be paying at minimum $20 for most games "complete." I mean. I don't go to Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, etc, and buy games with the disc only, and even if they were complete, I'm still getting a NEW game for $15-$20 rather than a used game for $20-$300.

I mean, it's pretty clear that you have some form of internet if you're on this forum, but even if you didn't, you could still play every PS4 game in my library. So you don't "need" internet. You can still play the entire single player campaign and multiplayer with offline bots and offline multiplayer on CoD, you can still play any of the 55 heists on Payday 2 and complete them in many difficulties, you can play the original revision of Diablo 3 Reaper of Souls, you can play through the entirety of any complete editions available like Watch Dogs(PAL only,) Witcher 3, Skyrim, etc. Anyways. You get the point.

You know as well as I do that you don't actually need an HDTV, there are pass through devices that allow you to play HDMI on older tvs. Additionally, HDTVs are as cheap as $50 and you can find decent sized low latency tvs for a few hundred dollars. Gaming, modern or otherwise, is a ridiculously cheap form of entertainment, obviously being a collector is going to be more expensive, but unless you collect a few years after the console is dead, used or not, complete games are going to be more expensive on average than collecting modern games that drop in price.

[Gameguy]

I think when it comes down to it is that in the not so distant future a lot of games are going to be unplayable, and while there is a lot of crap out there, good games, even great games are going to disappear.

Games will always be available to play in some form, like rereleases/compilations or emulation. It's just that playing with original hardware as collectors might eventually become problematic except for a select few people with the resources necessary to keep the old hardware running properly, even dealing with original CRT displays which will be needed for lightgun games. I just remember all the various Atari 2600 compilations available throughout the 90's and early 2000's for PC and various consoles.

This statement seems more like you're just stuck in the past. It's not just pure technical advancement. Many of these indie games could probably run on the PS1, even a lot of larger Japanese publishers are PS3 or even PS2 quality releases. Also just because a game looks great, doesn't mean that it can't be a quality game. When it comes to gameplay, Metal Gear Solid 5 is the best in the series, and while it's bloated with content and probably would have been better without being open world, it's one of the few open world games this gen that does open world gaming right. The Last of Us looks amazing, and is imo the best stealth game ever released, the game has a quality multiplayer added onto it as well. The Last of Us is such a great game that Capcom decided to rip it off with Resident Evil Revelations 2(they failed of course.) Bloodborne and Dark Souls 3 could look like sh** and still be great games, but they also look amazing as well. Throwing out "pure technical advancement," sounds more like you're blindly bashing newer stuff just because it's new.

As I said in my previous post, how many shit games are there on the NES, SNES, Genesis, etc. There's a lot of trash among all of those consoles, infact there's stuff so bad that atleast in the retail market on current gen consoles, nothing even comes close to comparing. Almost all games that are released today on the retail market are on average better than half the 8 and 16bit libraries. Praise past gen titles as much as you want, we all know there was also a lot of crap. Granted there was a lot of great games as well, but acting like past gen is superior because limited graphics is just as bad as me being an elitist(which I have no problems admitting.)

You're the one who brought up framerates and slowdown, saying Super Castlevania IV had slowdown and Metal Gear Solid 3 only had 20fps. What I remember about those games is that I had fun playing them, I don't care about technical specs as long as I'm having fun. I'm not against all modern games automatically, I just don't feel strongly enough to play most of them.

I don't really feel much interest with most modern games as they all feel generic, probably because the characters are mostly forgettable. No more characters like Pac-Man, Q*Bert, Donkey Kong, Mario, Sonic, King Graham, Guybrush Threepwood, Lara Croft, Crash Bandicoot, Solid Snake, etc. I watched a let's play of The Last of Us and I can't tell you the names of the main characters besides Ellie(ie generic girl). Even if they play well they still feel like cheap knockoffs of better games, the way Socket is a ripoff of Sonic and nobody remembers it. Who's the guy in Dishonored from Bethesda? I played it briefly before selling it off, I just don't care enough about it to feel invested. I do want to play through Alan Wake when I get a chance, it seems interesting from what I've played so far and I can remember the guy's name which is something.

Yes there's a lot of trash on those old consoles. Am I playing Total Recall, Action 52, Rise of the Robots, Bubsy, Shaq Fu, or Sword of Sodan? No, I'm playing the good games from those consoles. The good games were mostly 2D, bright and colourful, mostly upbeat, memorable characters, just fun. I can just pick up and play them without long tutorials to learn the controls. Just look to Rocket Knight Adventures or Aladdin on the Genesis as examples.

I do end up watching Let's Plays of modern games, they're fun enough when someone else is playing through them. I don't have much desire to play those games myself though. Bloodborne isn't my type of gameplay, but I do see that it's a well made game.

I dunno about this, but it reminded me of when I'll be watching someone else's review or lets play and during gameplay a thing will pop up saying "So-and-so is online!" And I'm like... people are seriously fine with this?

So like, why would you even want this? Is there a way to turn this off?

It's fine when you're not really invested in any of the games that much. Even those "Achievement Unlocked" pop-ups annoy me for the same reasons.

There is actually a way to turn off those notifications, a lot of these youtube people just forget to turn them off and don't want to bother rerecording footage so they leave that in.

As for the whole rich man's game, it's yes and no. If you're just starting out and have to buy everything from scratch, it is cheaper now compared to how expensive everything was back 20-30 years ago. But we're different as we already have TVs and dozens of consoles with hundreds of games to play, anything new just brings up the question of do I really need to upgrade from what I have already? For the most part, I would say no I don't. It's why I'm sticking with my Samsung Galaxy III smartphone as it's doing what I need it to. And I still don't own a high def TV, maybe I'll upgrade when people are throwing them out for the new 4K TVs everyone will be upgrading to, before whatever replaces them just 10 years later. Don't forget to rebuy your movies too!

Gaming wise just stick to PC games. Everyone basically owns and uses a computer(with or without gaming in mind), and getting a basic one for around $600 new will last around 10 years easily for most needs if not longer. My laptop is almost 10 years old at this point and I can still surf the internet, watch online videos, and can still play most modern games just fine. Maybe not at maximum settings but they still can be played. I remember when buying a new computer in the 90's would be around $3000, while consoles were around $200-$300. There's little price difference now.

That's anything modern. When the SNES was modern games were more expensive than they are now, and most hourly wages were less. When the N64 and PS1 were modern, N64 prices were ridiculous, although PS1 games were $50 each, so were Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube, and Xbox games. That being said, the minimum wage has increased since that time, so games are essentially cheaper now days still. Game prices also drop pretty quick if you want the purchases to be affordable. Waiting for the gen to end and then purchasing the games used at that time is the cheapest by far, but if you were to collect SNES games now days you'll be paying at minimum $20 for most games "complete." I mean. I don't go to Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, etc, and buy games with the disc only, and even if they were complete, I'm still getting a NEW game for $15-$20 rather than a used game for $20-$300.

You know as well as I do that you don't actually need an HDTV, there are pass through devices that allow you to play HDMI on older tvs.

It's funny you mentioned PS1 and Dreamcast, back when those consoles were current a large percentage of the users would just be modding the systems and pirating the games for them instead of buying them. Same for the PS2 and Xbox really, the N64 and Gamecube were more difficult to pirate and also sold the worst of their generations. Going further back most people only used to own maybe 10-20 games total for their consoles because of how expensive they were, it's not like people just used to spend more money on video games than they do now, they just bought less. The Dreamcast sucked though so I don't have money wasted on that, I only have some N64 games left as they're complete and I'm hoping to trade them for good games at some point.

There was a time when buying a movie on VHS would cost around $80-$100, now you can buy a new DVD from a bargain bin for under $5 including collections of 50 public domain movies. Just going by inflation rates isn't a great standard for deciding what's affordable, entertainment as a whole is cheap now with a large thanks due to the internet.

Also I tried playing Dishonored for the 360 on a standard CRT. All of the text, menus, and information on screen was illegible. You pretty much do need an HDTV to play anything modern properly.

[kupomogli]

You're the one who brought up framerates and slowdown, saying Super Castlevania IV had slowdown and Metal Gear Solid 3 only had 20fps. What I remember about those games is that I had fun playing them, I don't care about technical specs as long as I'm having fun. I'm not against all modern games automatically, I just don't feel strongly enough to play most of them.

Yes, I did, but it was as a response to the people who masturbate to the completeness of past gen games. Now, I for one don't ever buy games from publishers who announce season passes, months worth of extra content, etc, before they even release the game, because I also don't like purchasing incomplete titles, but if these games do interest me, I'll wait for them to either release a complete edition or two years later when it's obvious there won't be one, I'll buy the game for cheap. I'm also disappointed when I get a game I'm interested in and it happens to have framerate issues or has a day one patch. However, I'm not so blind that I can't see that even without patches, the games run a lot better than past gen titles. Super Castlevania 4 is one of my favorite games of all time, in fact, it's one of my top 10 favorite games of all time, but it still has tons of slow down issues. If it was released today I'd be disappointed seeing the issues it has as well.

I don't really feel much interest with most modern games as they all feel generic, probably because the characters are mostly forgettable. No more characters like Pac-Man, Q*Bert, Donkey Kong, Mario, Sonic, King Graham, Guybrush Threepwood, Lara Croft, Crash Bandicoot, Solid Snake, etc. I watched a let's play of The Last of Us and I can't tell you the names of the main characters besides Ellie(ie generic girl). Even if they play well they still feel like cheap knockoffs of better games, the way Socket is a ripoff of Sonic and nobody remembers it. Who's the guy in Dishonored from Bethesda? I played it briefly before selling it off, I just don't care enough about it to feel invested.

I pretty much hated Dishonored as well, also sold it off. However, you listed off a bunch of characters, but how is Lara Croft and Solid Snake any less generic than a lot of these others? Their game releases and how popular they were is what made them iconic characters. Do you hear people saying how awesome Jake from Shadow Run on SNES is as a character? Some of the most iconic characters are from RPG games, and all of those are just random weeaboo anime characters. The reason why these characters are so much more iconic than most, despite being as generic as they are, is because you spend so much time with these characters.

Additionally, why would you even play the game because the characters. The game atleast has to look appealing sure, but I didn't like Simon Belmont before I liked Castlevania. I like Simon Belmont because I like Castlevania. If Castlevania was trash, do you think I would have ever liked any of the characters within the game?

Yes there's a lot of trash on those old consoles. Am I playing Total Recall, Action 52, Rise of the Robots, Bubsy, Shaq Fu, or Sword of Sodan? No, I'm playing the good games from those consoles. The good games were mostly 2D, bright and colourful, mostly upbeat, memorable characters, just fun. I can just pick up and play them without long tutorials to learn the controls. Just look to Rocket Knight Adventures or Aladdin on the Genesis as examples.

So correct me if I'm wrong, Tomb Raider and Metal Gear Solid on the PS1 don't have tutorials? Games have advanced beyond using two or three buttons on average, so you'd expect tutorials to be built into the gameplay. Additionally, gaming is bigger than it's ever been, and not only do people lack common sense, but they're stupid. The majority of "gamers" are trash at actually playing them, so blame society for being morons that need their hands held to get through the games. AVGN rarely plays anything that isn't past gen, and what he does play past gen he's pretty garbage at, despite that being almost all he ever plays. So obviously you see the need for tutorials for these people when more buttons are involved.

That being said, I do hope you do realize how ridiculous it is to bash a video game for incorporating tutorials. That's a pretty sad excuse.

You pretty much do need an HDTV to play anything modern properly.

You need a "TV" to play any console. Edmond Dantes bringing that up in the first place to justify his reasoning, just shows it's nothing more than blind hate, which is pretty much all these threads are in the first place.

[XYXZYZ]

There are a lot of reasons why modern games just don't do it for me. Primarily because I don't get that satisfying burst of a good fun challenge like I did with the NES games. If I play something like Oblivion, hours and hours just waste away, and it feels like it. With modern games I just feel like I'm out of my element. With the old 2D games I still get the same groovy feeling.

But I'm not upset, because there are hundreds and hundreds of classic games I can still choose from. So, I can still game the way I always have in the 21st century.

[Gameguy]

Yes, I did, but it was as a response to the people who masturbate to the completeness of past gen games. Now, I for one don't ever buy games from publishers who announce season passes, months worth of extra content, etc, before they even release the game, because I also don't like purchasing incomplete titles, but if these games do interest me, I'll wait for them to either release a complete edition or two years later when it's obvious there won't be one, I'll buy the game for cheap. I'm also disappointed when I get a game I'm interested in and it happens to have framerate issues or has a day one patch. However, I'm not so blind that I can't see that even without patches, the games run a lot better than past gen titles. Super Castlevania 4 is one of my favorite games of all time, in fact, it's one of my top 10 favorite games of all time, but it still has tons of slow down issues. If it was released today I'd be disappointed seeing the issues it has as well.

I'll even help your argument by saying it's easy for them to be sold complete when most old games were short, you played for a high score or the game was tough so it took awhile to get through the few short levels. Computer games were longer, and those old adventure games were among my favourites. I dislike modern episodic games compared to the older full games. I pretty much also wait for the games to be fully released before playing them, that's a bit different than most people with modern gaming who buy stuff close to launch to play it at it's peak interest. I'd buy interesting stuff if I came across it at a yard sale too, like priced $1 each or so. That's how I got Dishonored in the first place, along with other 360 games I can't even remember the titles of as I sold them off too.

I pretty much hated Dishonored as well, also sold it off. However, you listed off a bunch of characters, but how is Lara Croft and Solid Snake any less generic than a lot of these others? Their game releases and how popular they were is what made them iconic characters. Do you hear people saying how awesome Jake from Shadow Run on SNES is as a character? Some of the most iconic characters are from RPG games, and all of those are just random weeaboo anime characters. The reason why these characters are so much more iconic than most, despite being as generic as they are, is because you spend so much time with these characters.

They're presented interestingly, that's why they're remembered. You need both a good game and a good character for games to be memorable, not just a good game. Plenty of horrible games are better remembered because they're awful, the least memorable are just mediocre. I've never really played Shadowrun for any length of time, I have it for the Genesis but never got into it. If you have a good game but weak characters, it'll still be forgotten pretty quick.

Additionally, why would you even play the game because the characters. The game atleast has to look appealing sure, but I didn't like Simon Belmont before I liked Castlevania. I like Simon Belmont because I like Castlevania. If Castlevania was trash, do you think I would have ever liked any of the characters within the game?

What makes adventure games fun or boring? The characters, writing, and puzzles. If any of those are lacking, the game won't be liked by adventure fans. It's why the genre almost died out awhile back because so many of the games coming out were just mediocre. Castlevania has good atmosphere and you're fighting Dracula, everything about it is appealing. Notice that the main character keeps changing in Castlevania games, the constant is Dracula.

So correct me if I'm wrong, Tomb Raider and Metal Gear Solid on the PS1 don't have tutorials? Games have advanced beyond using two or three buttons on average, so you'd expect tutorials to be built into the gameplay. Additionally, gaming is bigger than it's ever been, and not only do people lack common sense, but they're stupid. The majority of "gamers" are trash at actually playing them, so blame society for being morons that need their hands held to get through the games. AVGN rarely plays anything that isn't past gen, and what he does play past gen he's pretty garbage at, despite that being almost all he ever plays. So obviously you see the need for tutorials for these people when more buttons are involved.

That being said, I do hope you do realize how ridiculous it is to bash a video game for incorporating tutorials. That's a pretty sad excuse.

I've never actually played Tomb Raider games for any length of time, besides a GBC game which doesn't really count as a proper Tomb Raider game. I just know of the character, which says something to the marketing. I haven't played through any of the Metal Gear Solid games, just a few hours of various games at kiosks when EB Games had them(which were pretty fun). I had Metal Gear on the NES, which sucks but is still memorable. I own the first two Metal Gear Solid games and plan to eventually play them.

I don't have a lot of spare time to play games and haven't for the last few years. If I only have 10 minutes at a time then I'll play something like Tetris, if I have a couple hours then I'll play something quick like a Sonic game until I die and put it away, or something like Ducktales or Super Mario Land I can play through to completion. I don't like it when so many modern games need hours of devotion just to be taught the controls and mechanics of a game before I can just freely play it. If I'm lucky and have hours of free time, I'll play an adventure game. Or just watch a let's play of a new game on youtube, I have no interest in playing them.

You need a "TV" to play any console. Edmond Dantes bringing that up in the first place to justify his reasoning, just shows it's nothing more than blind hate, which is pretty much all these threads are in the first place.

You said he didn't need an HDTV as he could use a converter to use HDMI on an old TV, I explained that you really do need an HDTV to play them. You could get by and hook it up to an old 5" portable black and white TV as well but good luck with that. I don't like being told that I need to spend money and buy a new version of something I really don't care about, it's like me telling you to renovate your bathroom or kitchen because they're a bit out of style now.

[Edmond Dantes]

So correct me if I'm wrong, Tomb Raider and Metal Gear Solid on the PS1 don't have tutorials?

They do, but they're optional--MGS1 handles it by giving you "VR missions" you can play which teach you the basics (and are a fun game in themselves with high scores you can reach). Tomb Raider lets you explore Lara's house which is basically a safe place to mess with the controls and learn the mechanics.

You need a "TV" to play any console. Edmond Dantes bringing that up in the first place to justify his reasoning, just shows it's nothing more than blind hate, which is pretty much all these threads are in the first place.

I love how I actually pointed out a LOT of things but you somehow boiled it down to JUST a TV. Seems like I'm not the one being "blind" here.

The real issue is I have a CRT that works fine, I don't have the space for a second TV and I don't want to deal with potential compatibility issues. Also I mentioned things like a lot of games having internet-dependent features (if you tell me that internet with no bandwidth or download limits is within easy grasp, I'll know you're some spoiled rich kid, because it f***ing isn't).

Yeah, god forbid I put realistic practical concerns about time, money, living space (which is cramped as is) and other logistical stuff into decisions involving a form of entertainment. Totally makes me the nut here.

[kupomogli]

The real issue is I have a CRT that works fine, I don't have the space for a second TV and I don't want to deal with potential compatibility issues. Also I mentioned things like a lot of games having internet-dependent features (if you tell me that internet with no bandwidth or download limits is within easy grasp, I'll know you're some spoiled rich kid, because it f***ing isn't).

As I stated above, patches and updates to make a game work better aren't needed. Super Castlevania 4 has slowdown, Mega Man X has slowdown, many games on past consoles have slowdown, bugs, etc. Games on future consoles do as well, but the games, just like on past consoles, are perfectly playable without any updates. There are even same games which are more than likely going to get complete editions, which I myself wait for the release of those versions.

Aside from Destiny, Warhammer Vermintide, and a few online only shooters or MOBA games, there's really not as many games that require an online connection as you think, except to play online multiplayer. Diablo, Victor Vran, and the like, are playable offline in couche co op. Diablo 3 has a ton of content from day one, it does have patches that have added more content, but they just add newly constructed areas. They additionally have patches that change the sets and add three additional item slots for legendary skills, however, it's not minor changes in the game, and essentially completely change how the game works. So the day one version of Diablo 3 Ultimate Evil Edition is just a different game altogether as the patched version. Same with Payday 2, they updated the way that you do your character builds so it's honestly completely different than the base version of the game. Now yes, Payday 2 The Big Score includes 45 different missions while there is DLC released later that brings it up to 58 missions, but 45 missions is a pretty extensive amount of content, it's just the game is regularly being updated.

Now you did mention, certain games that require online to play with other people, and as I stated, these games would be unplayable multiplayer without online. Examples. Grand Theft Auto San Andreas had multiplayer and it wasn't split screen, the screen panned back the further the players got away from each other. Realistically though, it's pretty unplayable. But, how about The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time, how was the multiplayer there? How was the multiplayer for Brave Fencer Musashi, etc?

Demon's Souls though is pretty much The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time when it comes to similar and more refined gameplay. Just the gameplay part is more Zelda, not puzzles, etc. As at its core, Demon's Souls is really just King's Field in 3D with an targeting system, a dodge mechanic, and a bit more depth in gameplay. As questioned above, how is Ocarina of Time's multiplayer though? That's right, there isn't any. So the online multiplayer gameplay is yes, for a limited time and after the servers shut down it'll be gone for good. The single player game is able to be finished solo and it's not really that difficult. Same thing with the Dark Souls games and Bloodborne, except those games are even easier with the addition of AI allies that you can summon to assist. The online multiplayer is really only just PvP or to get help to progress. The games are still 20+ hours worth of content otherwise, and that's only for one playthrough with one of the weapons. If you like to replay the game with multiple different builds and set ups, then it'll take several times that amount. Bloodborne to be proficient with every weapon without just grinding to make an all powerful character, there's the strength bloodtinge build, the skill bloodtinge build, the pure bloodtinge build, the arcane build, the strength build, the skill build, quality build, and then all sorts of medium variations of those builds.

One Way Heroics has an online feature. It's pretty pointless to be honest. It's the first person who gets to one end and kills the enemy player. It's really just a novelty. However, as a rogue-like game in the traditional fashion, examples being Rogue, Fatal Labyrinth, or Shiren the Wanderer as examples, Mystery Chronicles One Way Heroics plays completely different from its predecessors. In the predecessors you usually got to different dungeons and then find steps to go up or down the dungeon to completion. In One Way Heroics, you're in a procedurally generated world map, so it's more like an adventure across the land, escaping from the darkness engulfing everything behind you. Same exact concept, different way to play the game and different difficulties, different objectives, different last bosses, etc. Chocobo's Dungeon 2 is the only game of this type that I know has local multiplayer, and the thing is, is the multiplayer is more or less broken. You essentially move once and the enemies move once. In Chocobo Dungeon 2, the player controlling Chocobo can move once, and then the second player can move freely, attack once, then still move freely without the enemies being able to make a move, essentially making you an unstoppable killing machine able to cheat the system. I'm sure you can understand why it's never been implemented as a co op game again.

So another question is, when was the last time you've played Resident Evil co op? Not since PS3, huh? Infact, like I said in a previous post PS3 and PS4 actually does split screen co op with the Resident Evil 5/6 games. Just a smaller resolution size per player as the games wouldn't run otherwise. They also play at 60fps on PS4(RE5 only with boost mode,) or 30fps on PS3 while in multiplayer.

Just to amuse you, out of all the PS4 games I own, not including racers, fighting games, sports games, etc, I am going to list the amount of games in my collection that include local co-op(PS4 only.) 22 games, again, not including any of the above that include LOCAL CO-OP, no online required. On the PS2, I have 21 and that's including each collection I own once(Sega Genesis Collection, etc) and Xenosaga because XenoCard. I even included Armored Core 2 and 3 and both expansions despite only having versus, while including Last Raven because it has co op. I didn't give that benefit to any PS4 game I own. Additionally, I didn't include any digital games that I own that have local co-op either. Games like Spelunky or Skulls of the Shogun for instance. Despite having them on my console, I don't consider them part of my collection. So 1/8th of both my PS4 and PS2 collection includes local co-op, more if you consider the fighting games, racers, and sports games that include it by default(including wrestling games as fighting.)

So yeah, I have a lot of games that include online multiplayer, but they still have a lot of OFFLINE ONLY single player content. and there's still 22 other games I own that don't fit in the obvious local multiplayer criteria on top of that I still can play local multiplayer, on top of all the other racing, fighting, and sports games I may or may not own on the PS4(just fighting honestly.)

[Edmond Dantes]

The internet issue isn't just limited to multiplayer or patches though. In some cases even getting the actual game requires online access (even if you buy a physical copy).

Hell, I already have problems just downloading my GOG library--and those are old games with small filesizes, no online features, and no DRM. I still have to do stuff like get up late at night so I can make use of my ISP's late-night free zone. Which can conflict with other plans I have and mess me up since I miss sleep (and if the fact I had surgery last november is anything to go by, my health doesn't need more hits). I actually stopped buying games on GOG for this reason, preferring to just wait for a physical disc to be delivered in the mail since for me that's actually a lot more convenient.

One game I want to get is Mega Man Legacy Collection (mostly just the second one since I never got a chance to play MM9 or 10), but the version I thought of getting--the Switch version (because the Switch can be played as a portable and thus would be more convenient for my purposes)--supposedly does a thing where you have to get online to download half the data. I'm not sure what the case is with the other versions. I suppose I could get Steam and play them on my laptop but then that's all-digital.

Sigh.

Well, hopefully this lottery ticket I bought will allow me to change houses and get better internet.

[jb143]

I remember a discussion on here nearly 10 years ago that people were saying we were on the last generation of physical media and I was making the argument that game sizes were growing faster than peoples internet speed(especially in rural areas) so physical was going to stick around for a long time. I think some are so accustom to always having high speed internet that they forget there is still a lot of the country (and world) where they don't, or it's spotty at best.

[kupomogli]

The internet issue isn't just limited to multiplayer or patches though. In some cases even getting the actual game requires online access (even if you buy a physical copy).

I've only owned two games this entire generation that were online only and require an internet connection. Destiny and Warhammer Vermintide(which I sold without playing after finding out it was online only, the return policy expired, I lost maybe $4.) Two games, and I own over 150. Out of all the games released on the PS4, there's probably 10 games or less that you can get at retail that require a constant internet connection.

One game I want to get is Mega Man Legacy Collection (mostly just the second one since I never got a chance to play MM9 or 10), but the version I thought of getting--the Switch version (because the Switch can be played as a portable and thus would be more convenient for my purposes)--supposedly does a thing where you have to get online to download half the data. I'm not sure what the case is with the other versions. I suppose I could get Steam and play them on my laptop but then that's all-digital.

Yes, it's understandably frustrating, but because the Switch has multiple sized cards and publishers feel they can get away with releasing an incomplete game and make the consumer download the rest doesn't mean that the PS4 and XBO versions are the same. So just because the Switch has small cards that developers cheap out on costs and require the rest of the game to be downloaded, automatically everything else requires an internet connection?

You've had a bad experience with the Switch and you're blowing everything else out of proportion. Just because these same games require downloads for the complete game on the Switch, of course the PS4 and XBO versions require downloads to be playable as well(no, they don't.) The scenario that you're giving out is incredibly rare even on the Switch.

I remember a discussion on here nearly 10 years ago that people were saying we were on the last generation of physical media and I was making the argument that game sizes were growing faster than peoples internet speed(especially in rural areas) so physical was going to stick around for a long time. I think some are so accustom to always having high speed internet that they forget there is still a lot of the country (and world) where they don't, or it's spotty at best.

Just because the internet connection in different parts of the world are worse, it doesn't give truth that the majority of games or even many games whatsoever are unplayable or even barely playable without it. I love the Mega Man series and the Castlevania series, but there are a lot of technical issues on the past games in the franchise. Great games as they may be, the majority of the games in this generation have less technical issues than both of those franchises. That's not counting the countless other good games that have technical issues as well.

[Edmond Dantes]

So just because the Switch has small cards that developers cheap out on costs and require the rest of the game to be downloaded, automatically everything else requires an internet connection?

I VERY CLEARLY said (and you even quoted me saying) "I don't know what the case is with the other versions." (Moreover, I never said I was unwilling to download games, I was physically unable to do so, at least without a lot of inconvenience).

There is nothing that pisses me off more than when someone twists my words, or else puts words in my mouth. If you're gonna be like that, please smack yourself with a hammer.