Nostalgia: Poignant or Posionous?

[afureru]

In my recent years in gaming circles, I've become much more annoyed with the sentiment of "things being better back then", usually combined with claims of game developers being less lazy than in the current period, when a single look at the Famicom library in 80s Japan proves that to be a rather rose tinted falsification of the ramifications of the industry. Is there anyone else feeling me, or am I misjudging human nature a bit?

 

[Zemus]

I can't say I've ever felt it, going by the word roots. I constantly obsess over the minutiae of past experiences and games because it feels GOOD to do that NOW, not because it was "better back then" or "painful". Although there is a slight sense of "coming home", in an internal way.

I feel that it's come to represent an aesthetic that incorporates pixel art, square waves, and other things I don't need to list, pushed to a degree that wouldn't have worked on an older system due to smaller screen sizes and other limitations. On that aesthetic, I suppose I'm neutral. (to answer the question in the OP)

 

[RageBurner]

I get you. Its both really.

It's poignant because it harkens to simpler times and game worth is often not objectively related to its quality, but rather the feelings it used to elicit, the feelings it brings back.

It's poisonous because it will always set our expectations to a level that is unattainable because we aren't trying to replay the games, we are trying to re-feel those feelings, be innocent and curious again.

Now, that doesn't mean old games don't have objective qualities, they do. And it also doesn't mean modern devs can't be lazy, they absolutely can.

This perception stems from the ease of development nowadays compared to then, because in the past solutions were bespoke and computing resources were limited; limitation is inspiration, as it were.

On the other hand, the industry shifted massively nowadays and budgets as well as expectations balloon out of control. Are there hard working modern developers and studios? certainly, but a lot of the industry isn't trying too hard.

So yes, nostalgia is a bit of a poison, but one that can be somewhat reveled upon.

 

[fake-kun]

I find it a bit annoying, and I say it as somebody who mostly prefers playing older games.

 

[Razputin_Psycho]

I get where you are going. Content farms on twitter like to go on about how games were complete back then. Yeah, assuming you don't account for revisions and games that just... couldn't be finished in time.
No microtransactions? We had arcade games and clearly lesser ports of said arcade games.
That being said. AAA is very clearly different from what it is today, but over 20 or more years, that is natural. My biggest issue is that game development clearly takes longer than it used to because of the spec race (PS3/360 was ground-zero for that), games are getting increasingly more difficult to preserve. Especially with the download only push. Retail stores have such few games that they have to adapt and become glorified toy stores with barely one side having actual games.

 

[Strategist's iconStrategist]

I think both can be true. Things were different back then and there is no problem with enjoying what was done before. But there's also some benefits to exploring new ways of doing things. Being completely entrenched in the old way of doing things is silly. But we can't just assume new things are automatically better because they are new. The pendulum swings both ways.

 

[tigg]

The only complaint I have, and it's a personal issue because I understand it's what sells now, is games back in the 90's even early 2000's focus on story a lot more than it seems they do now. Today with battle royal games like fortnite and run and gun shooters the market has swayed that way, I just got stuck in a past tense form of video games. That's not saying that games now do not have deep stories because there most certainly are some, but the big focus seems to be in games with micro-transactions and all out war. Publishers have to develop what sales though

 

[Strategist's iconStrategist]

The only complaint I have, and it's a personal issue because I understand it's what sells now, is games back in the 90's even early 2000's focus on story a lot more than it seems they do now. Today with battle royal games like fortnite and run and gun shooters the market has swayed that way, I just got stuck in a past tense form of video games. That's not saying that games now do not have deep stories because there most certainly are some, but the big focus seems to be in games with micro-transactions and all out war. Publishers have to develop what sales though

I think gaming companies can sell pretty much any type of high quality game they wish with the right type of marketing and the right budget constraints. With things like Steam and online stores, every game that has an audience will find it eventually. The problem is a game with story requires more creative and development effort than one without. And gaming studios aren't viewed anymore as artistic industries, but rather profit centers for stockholders and board members who care very little about the medium. Its not nostalgia to point this out, it is simple facts.

 

[SkunkyBeaumont]

I prefer the look and feel of older style games in general. I think that companies have basically thrown engaging gameplay to the wayside to focus on Hollywood style spectacle and cutscenes as opposed to emergent gameplay. Like in Final Fantasy (I-VI), or Dragon Warrior (I-VII), where you are engaged in a theater of the mind ala Dungeons and Dragons (2nd Edition AD&D if you please). The same cannot be said for the latest time sinks in the genre for sure, and I feel like games are the worse for it.

 

[RageBurner]

The same cannot be said for the latest time sinks in the genre for sure, and I feel like games are the worse for it.

Games and us players both.

Here's a simple exercise: Pick one game per decade in a given genre and clock how long it takes to get in on the action. You'll find that as you travel into the future, more and more time gets set aside for long, meandering expository dumps.

 

[Sayo]

Well one thing is certainly a fact and that is that developers of yore tended to be far more passionate on average about what they did which could excuse games that weren't as great, which really isn't to say that there weren't lazy titles then or now.
Many modern games are extremely corporate-adjacent and made by people who often don't care about the medium, especially on the larger more mainstream side of things, but I think that easily accessible dev tools these days ensure that we get a far wider array of passionately developed games.
So to answer your question, both but not really.

 

[Strategist's iconStrategist]

Well one thing is certainly a fact and that is that developers of yore tended to be far more passionate on average about what they did which could excuse games that weren't as great, which really isn't to say that there weren't lazy titles then or now.
Many modern games are extremely corporate-adjacent and made by people who often don't care about the medium, especially on the larger more mainstream side of things, but I think that easily accessible dev tools these days ensure that we get a far wider array of passionately developed games.
So to answer your question, both but not really.

Yes, the democratization of game development is one of the best aspects of modernity. That and electronic distribution of games. It enabled gamers to be free of the tyranny of AAA studios not giving a f about their products.

 

[Sayo]

Yes, the democratization of game development is one of the best aspects of modernity. That and electronic distribution of games. It enabled gamers to be free of the tyranny of AAA studios not giving a f about their products.

Precisely, it's probably and single-handedly the best thing to ever happen to gaming. Now far more stories and experiences can be told and shared freely regardless of skill level or education.

 

[DunkeyKong]

I don't what else can I say but what I did know is that being a game developer isn't easy. No matter what year, no matter how advanced, making a game is hard

 

[Hikari.EXE]

I remember having a similar discussion on a thread I made, about losing the "magic" of games, we reached a conclusion that some older games where seen in rose tinted glasses, while other games where just THAT good! I came from an era of gaming where the hardware limitation was in perfect equilibrium with the ambition of the devs, so replaying all the games I grew up with solidified to me that yeah, it wasen't blind nostalgia that made me love these games.

 

[YuriSukiSan]

I think there's been a general decline in quality to be quite frank across most industries, I think the tl;dr is that the industry is a horrible corporatized mess of failure. That doesn't mean good games don't still come out! It means the standard triple A game is just generally a much poorer quality than it used to be, standards are generally middling and the devs working on them aren't as skilled. I think mediocre is how I would describe most triple A games these days. Often I feel what people used to consider a 6/10 in the yesteryear is now a 10/10 by todays standard. Whether that's because they're outsourcing the work to save money, hiring 9-5 dispassionate devs, simply aren't willing to pay the wages required for talent, rushing out games, bloated budgets that feel like a scam or are hiring based on other criteria whether that's politics, nepotism or investment -- rather than meritocracy -- which dramatically affects the quality of the product.

Your standard game dev these days is not an MIT graduate of old that was making his own engine for fun on the side, it's someone that went to a college to be taught how to code in a neatly packaged system based on what the old dev made. When was the time last we really actually had an AAA game that was properly optimized for the system it was launched on? I feel like that was Alien: Isolation despite it's flaws, it's optimization was witchcraft levels of good. That's the type of quality we used to have. Games aren't meant to be a bloated mess of assets.

This video gets passed around a lot but I think it's important.

To actually comment on the nostalgia, it can be really poisonous. People shouldn't live or pine for the past constantly but I don't think we should pretend it's the sole reason many of us here are playing games made generations ago. A few good friends of mine have gotten back in to video games very recently because of emulation, it's not that they didn't stop loving games. They just stopped loving modern game design.

 

[tempest2k]

YIIK is kind of about this

 

[Hikari.EXE]

When was the last we really actually had a game that was properly optimized for the system it was launched on?

Crazy that I had this tought some days ago, considering that every game released nowdays is multiplataform, when was the last time we had a game that was solely made with a certain hardware in mind? Excluding Nintendo, I can't think of a recent example. You'll be surprised to know how much of a difference a game made with one console in mind can change the feel of it, and that's why when porting said game to another console, somethings can get "lost in translation". It's cool that we get games on all kinds of plataforms these days, but exclusives showed the power of a specific system or the mastery of a dev team over a console.

 

[Zemus]

I prefer the look and feel of older style games in general. I think that companies have basically thrown engaging gameplay to the wayside to focus on Hollywood style spectacle and cutscenes as opposed to emergent gameplay. Like in Final Fantasy (I-VI), or Dragon Warrior (I-VII), where you are engaged in a theater of the mind ala Dungeons and Dragons (2nd Edition AD&D if you please). The same cannot be said for the latest time sinks in the genre for sure, and I feel like games are the worse for it.

Well said. "Realism" destroys immersion and focus.

Post automatically merged: Jan 7, 2025

I don't what else can I say but what I did know is that being a game developer isn't easy. No matter what year, no matter how advanced, making a game is hard

And THIS is why "bad" games don't bother me if I like them.

 

[YuriSukiSan]

Crazy that I had this tought some days ago, considering that every game released nowdays is multiplataform, when was the last time we had a game that was solely made with a certain hardware in mind? Excluding Nintendo, I can't think of a recent example. You'll be surprised to know how much of a difference a game made with one console in mind can change the feel of it, and that's why when porting said game to another console, somethings can get "lost in translation". It's cool that we get games on all kinds of plataforms these days, but exclusives showed the power of a specific system or the mastery of a dev team over a console.

I think for me it's more just that games tend to be released in a messy state. I understand it's because back in the day that wasn't an option, that they couldn't just patch them out otherwise it would end up like ET on the Atari or Trespasser but even despite that, games just aren't properly optimized a lot of the time. .. I have a love hate relationship with the idea of exclusives, I do often think about how different certain games would be if that was the way, the uniqueness we lost, but it's more me getting grumpy over modern devs releasing games that are lazily made. Too many modern games have system requirements way above their needs because the devs aren't optimizing their games.

 

[Hikari.EXE]

Too many modern games have system requirements way above their needs because the devs aren't optimizing their games.

TRUUUUUE. I don't play COD since I was 12, but I remember the memes people where making about Warzone and how it needed fucking (aproximatly) 300GB!!! Who the fuck is cooking at Activision? This shit is criminal!

 

[DunkeyKong]

Well said. "Realism" destroys immersion and focus.

Post automatically merged: Jan 7, 2025

And THIS is why "bad" games don't bother me if I like them.

True…well maybe not all of them of course. If it's still playable and enjoyable then it's good

 

[Hikari.EXE]

Well said. "Realism" destroys immersion and focus.

I like the walking physics in Death Stranding. It's a weirdly relaxing game.

 

[Somnia]

Modern gaming has tons of issues, but so did every era of video games. If the modern era isn't doing it for someone they are fortunate enough to have thousands of games released across the decades that are worth their time. If someone points out any of the myriad of issues with the AAA side of the industry in particular I tend to understand where they are coming from since there really are countless issues holding the industry back that have been issues for 10+ years now (focus on realism, homogenized design, ballooning production values that benefit nothing, predatory live service models etc). What does bug me is when people dislike the modern state of the industry and then just refuse to open up their backlog and engage with anything that isn't ultra modern.

Gaming as a hobby/passion is something that like with any artform you could engage with 24/7 for your entire sentient life and barely scratch the surface of all worthwhile releases. You cheat nobody but yourself when you close yourself off from the vast majority of those experiences while admitting the modern state of things aren't appeasing you. Either figure out how to engage in a way that is healthy for you or find a new hobby, it is totally fine to accept you've changed out of a former passion, it happens to everyone at least once!

Fwiw while I dislike many aspects of modern gaming I find it easy enough to just focus on the handful of releases that /do/ pique my interest and focus more on my backlog. It is far more productive than just acting like the world sucks now because there are fewer modern releases per year that I look forward to or that certain devs/franchises or whatever just aren't appealing to me anymore.

(old comment sucked so I deleted it and am now posting this)

 

[AtlasM]

You know the saying? Too much medicine is poison. So, too much poignancy is poison, too.

The key is to know when to say, "Back in the days......"

For example, back in the days, games were released after full optimization. Nowadays, they don't even bother, and I hate it. (This is not poisonous, I think, this is a legit complain)

Post automatically merged: Jan 7, 2025

Modern gaming has tons of issues, but so did every era of video games. If the modern era isn't doing it for someone they are fortunate enough to have thousands of games released across the decades that are worth their time. If someone points out any of the myriad of issues with the AAA side of the industry in particular I tend to understand where they are coming from since there really are countless issues holding the industry back that have been issues for 10+ years now (focus on realism, homogenized design, ballooning production values that benefit nothing, predatory live service models etc). What does bug me is when people dislike the modern state of the industry and then just refuse to open up their backlog and engage with anything that isn't ultra modern.

Gaming as a hobby/passion is something that like with any artform you could engage with 24/7 for your entire sentient life and barely scratch the surface of all worthwhile releases. You cheat nobody but yourself when you close yourself off from the vast majority of those experiences while admitting the modern state of things aren't appeasing you. Either figure out how to engage in a way that is healthy for you or find a new hobby, it is totally fine to accept you've changed out of a former passion, it happens to everyone at least once!

Fwiw while I dislike many aspects of modern gaming I find it easy enough to just focus on the handful of releases that /do/ pique my interest and focus more on my backlog. It is far more productive than just acting like the world sucks now because there are fewer modern releases per year that I look forward to or that certain devs/franchises or whatever just aren't appealing to me anymore.

(old comment sucked so I deleted it and am now posting this)

Agree 100%. I don't even bother playing newer games (that I'm not sure I'll like). The only recent game I play is Stalker 2 and Starfield. I love Starfield despite its trademark Bethesda flaws. I also love Stalker 2 despite my huge complaints on bullet sponge mutants and wack economy (it's fixed sometime ago), and terrible choices and wording on those choices