Most games that I've played on PS5 seem to have too much focus on using currency to purchase dlc. They also make extremely complicated menus. That's my take what's yours?
I also hate the overly complicated menus with extremely small text. Like, if you're gonna throw so much information on the screen at least make it readable and easy to follow. The smaller resolutions prevented devs from doing stuff like this in older games and forced them to get more creative to convey the same information. Now they don't have to do that so just just word vomit all over the screen.
Games are so expensive to make now that they aren't worth making unless publishers can make a profit. This has decimated "double A" games, which is where a lot of creativity in the space came from, and some of the most renowned games of all time weren't huge budget releases (for a good example of this, take a look at how many Rockstar IPs there were in sixth gen compared to now, and all of them were beloved in some way).
I don't hear many people talk about this either: a lot of the legendary game developers of old had a background in arcade games. A lot of those arcade sensibilities (frenetic, gameplay first focus) were obvious in certain games like Ninja Gaiden or Devil May Cry, but non-obvious examples include things like Resident Evil 4 for instance.
Modern gamers seem allergic to anything even resembling tank controls, but really, Resident Evil 4 OG actually controls *more fluidly* than its remake. You are not once caught in a "realistic" stumbling animation, or holding your breath trying to fight against Leon's momentum. He moves forward the second you press forward, and stops the second you stop. When he jumps down, or vaults over, or turns around, or gets hit, the action is the exact same way every time. This allows you to master the controls completely, which makes way for things like consistently spacing out enemy grabs, or allowing yourself to squeeze through a tight group of enemies once you get good at knowing what your rules are. This feels good.
Now, many universities have a game development program, students are going into it with the idea of turning game development into a 9-5, and are taking rigid, by the books classes about level design where they are likely encouraged to follow modern gaming trends which includes cinematic, story focused games with ultra-realistic animations and momentum that doesn't really feel good to play. Games used to feel fun to just walk around in, that's it.
"Wow! They added [ SERIES ] to [ POPULAR LIVE SERVICE GAME ]? That's so cool!" Was a little goofy at first. Now it's frustrating. It feels like it's deemphasizing creativity and substituting it for a quick cash grab. Yes, the novelty of putting- say- Persona 5 in OW is cool. But OW COULD be cool on its own merits! Recognizable characters. Engaging story, when they try. Fun gameplay!
I don't need Joker Persona 5 to gasp at. I already thought it was cool! Now by constantly adding new crossovers, players aren't thinking about new skins or voice lines or the story. Now it's just waiting for them to add whatever the next anime craze is.
I don't hate the concept of crossovers in games. Fortnite I can live with since it was never really about the story, and the skins matter nothing more than a thing to giggle at with friends. But every gacha, every live-service-- everything having Ryu Streets in it is downright lame.
I don't think the industry is creatively bankrupt, or the only way to have a good time is to pull up old games. But I can't blame people for holding the opinion.
Oh boy. this question could have me sit here and write a university level essay. But I'm going to restrain myself and try to be succinct.
ACCESSIBILITY is the main issue with modern gaming. The way people (particularly in the west) have come to interpret engaging with games stems from the latent desire to simply "compete" it. This is why we see yellow paint everywhere, such as in FF7 Rebirth... it's come so far that this problem includes hardcore action games from japan like Ninja Gaiden 4.
The mortal sin of any game, in the mind of the average public consumer today, is A: "Bad graphics" (anything that doesn't have UE5 bullshit) or B: The inability for them to "complete" it.
Take the modern god of war reboots for example, they have a system called suck to target, which essentially means that spacing in relation to you or the enemy is pointless, as anytime you attack you can notice your character "sucking" to the target enemy. I am quite certain the new Wolverine game will also rely on this game design.
Only I, and a few thousand other old-heads will even care about this at all, as to the average consumer, wolverine looking and sounding cool and doing flashy attacks when you hit the buttons is all they desire. God forbid any aspect of any modern game actually cause friction.
Look at dark souls vs elden ring.
the entire identity of elden ring relies on "if something is too hard, go somewhere else and out level the challenge" instead of the focused more linear design of the previous entries. In elden ring they are essentially asking you to create your own challenge. This is about as much fun as tying one of your arms behind your back before a fight.
Players today, at least in the single player space, have been completely conditioned by modern standards and sensibilities to the point where the most miniscule hiccup in their smooth gameplay experience will become associated with a complaint.
What almost every single modern game is lacking, in comparison to the retro games of old, is the FAITH that developers used to entrust to their players, the faith that despite hardships, the fundamental experience will reap enough joy that repeated attempts will bring pleasure even through failure, as the core gameplay experience requires manual transmission style thinking.
Let me put it this way. Modern games feel like driving a tokyo drift car in automatic. They might look, sound, and act in the way you expect them to, but without the thrill of pulling the gearshift and sliding around corners, there is realistically very little difference between the sports car and a minivan.
I think a lot of people have already brought up the monetization/microtransaction problems with modern AAA games, but I'd also like to mention that UI/menu design is total ass nowadays. Even Monster Hunter Wilds, which I otherwise liked, had terrible, tedious menus for the most basic things.
I also hate the overly complicated menus with extremely small text. Like, if you're gonna throw so much information on the screen at least make it readable and easy to follow. The smaller resolutions prevented devs from doing stuff like this in older games and forced them to get more creative to convey the same information. Now they don't have to do that so just just word vomit all over the screen.
A most recent game was wwe 2k. I love no mercy but I can't play that game forever and I wanted something to do online but yeah it's possible. I much like the menu on something like dk bonanza.
i wouldn't say that something is "wrong" with modern games and such.
i think the biggest thing is that they just aren't made to appeal to you anymore.
they're designed to be enjoyed in small bursts over a long period because that's what works with the average consumer.
the question itself isn't a bad one but i think it can very easily devolve into discussions that ultimately don't mean anything since the people who go on forums and talk about this stuff have cared way more about the hobby on a deeper level than a father of 2 can/should.
The sheer amount of games out there is now to the point of ridiculousness. It's nice to have options, but I don't have a billion hours or a billion dollars. According to the latest figures Steam releases 50 games per day. That's just insane.
Throw in modding, emulation, ports and browser games and many days I can't even choose a game to play. Oh well, better than having few or no choices....
Oh boy. this question could have me sit here and write a university level essay. But I'm going to restrain myself and try to be succinct.
ACCESSIBILITY is the main issue with modern gaming. The way people (particularly in the west) have come to interpret engaging with games stems from the latent desire to simply "compete" it. This is why we see yellow paint everywhere, such as in FF7 Rebirth... it's come so far that this problem includes hardcore action games from japan like Ninja Gaiden 4.
The mortal sin of any game, in the mind of the average public consumer today, is A: "Bad graphics" (anything that doesn't have UE5 bullshit) or B: The inability for them to "complete" it.
Take the modern god of war reboots for example, they have a system called suck to target, which essentially means that spacing in relation to you or the enemy is pointless, as anytime you attack you can notice your character "sucking" to the target enemy. I am quite certain the new Wolverine game will also rely on this game design.
Only I, and a few thousand other old-heads will even care about this at all, as to the average consumer, wolverine looking and sounding cool and doing flashy attacks when you hit the buttons is all they desire. God forbid any aspect of any modern game actually cause friction.
Look at dark souls vs elden ring.
the entire identity of elden ring relies on "if something is too hard, go somewhere else and out level the challenge" instead of the focused more linear design of the previous entries. In elden ring they are essentially asking you to create your own challenge. This is about as much fun as tying one of your arms behind your back before a fight.
Players today, at least in the single player space, have been completely conditioned by modern standards and sensibilities to the point where the most miniscule hiccup in their smooth gameplay experience will become associated with a complaint.
What almost every single modern game is lacking, in comparison to the retro games of old, is the FAITH that developers used to entrust to their players, the faith that despite hardships, the fundamental experience will reap enough joy that repeated attempts will bring pleasure even through failure, as the core gameplay experience requires manual transmission style thinking.
Let me put it this way. Modern games feel like driving a tokyo drift car in automatic. They might look, sound, and act in the way you expect them to, but without the thrill of pulling the gearshift and sliding around corners, there is realistically very little difference between the sports car and a minivan.
The yellow stuff is so bad. At first glance some of these games seem really intricate, but then you end up walking around following a waypoint for basically the whole game. Assasins creed or cyber punk as examples.
i wouldn't say that something is "wrong" with modern games and such.
i think the biggest thing is that they just aren't made to appeal to you anymore.
they're designed to be enjoyed in small bursts over a long period because that's what works with the average consumer.
the question itself isn't a bad one but i think it can very easily devolve into discussions that ultimately don't mean anything since the people who go on forums and talk about this stuff have cared way more about the hobby on a deeper level than a father of 2 can/should.
It all started back in the mid-to-late 90's, during the 3D revolution. Basically games started requiring more & more people to develop in a timely manner. Then you add in graphics becoming more & more complex, thus requiring yet even MOAR people for development..
So by the turn of the century, video games required more & MOAR capital to even get off the ground. Therefore requiring more & more "executive producers," bigger advertising budgets, etc. And before you know it, the entire industry is bogged down in a giant, bureaucratic quagmire..
Then came mobile "gaming," which introduced (or at least normalized) the poison that is micro-transactions...
Post automatically merged:
This is why Indie-games are breaking out in a big way..
Hopefully these AAA & AAAA development studios can just DIE as quickly as possible, so there can be a gaming renaissance. Much like the bubonic plague was to the historical renaissance, or a "Noah's Ark" style flood in the biblical canon...
The sheer amount of games out there is now to the point of ridiculousness. It's nice to have options, but I don't have a billion hours or a billion dollars. According to the latest figures Steam releases 50 games per day. That's just insane.
Throw in modding, emulation, ports and browser games and many days I can't even choose a game to play. Oh well, better than having few or no choices....
It all started back in the mid-to-late 90's, during the 3D revolution. Basically games started requiring more & more people to develop in a timely manner. Then you add in graphics becoming more & more complex, thus requiring yet even MOAR people for development..
So by the turn of the century, video games required more & MOAR capital to even get off the ground. Therefore requiring more & more "executive producers," bigger advertising budgets, etc. And before you know it, the entire industry is bogged down in a giant, bureaucratic quagmire..
Then came mobile "gaming," which introduced (or at least normalized) the poison that is micro-transactions...
Post automatically merged:
This is why Indie-games are breaking out in a big way..
Hopefully these AAA & AAAA development studios can just DIE as quickly as possible, so there can be a gaming renaissance. Much like the bubonic plague was to the historical renaissance, or a "Noah's Ark" style flood in the biblical canon...
A generational shift among developers is unfortunately a reality we can't avoid.
Brutal costs because now everything has to be big and have an "expert" in something that will most likely be an add-on that the end consumer won't even see or care about. Yesterday I saw a clip from a CoD video where a cat cafe expert shared her experience recreating one for the game's map. It's simply ridiculous.
Too many contracts for untrained staff. A bothcamp isn't training; it's just losing money and working for others for free.
And the worst part is the shareholders. A few years ago, you wouldn't see profits until 8-15 years in the future. Now, profits have to be seen in one or two fiscal years, or we'll close your studio. And you better have a 200% return day one of launch, or your studio will go bankrupt.
DENUVO, unreal engine, unnecessary tutorials, Price, among other things, there are still interesting games but every year they become fewer and fewer (with the exception of indies of course, they still reigns supreme)
Debating on the question, I find it hard what to really say is: 'Wrong with Modern Gaming in 2025' since will probably say the same things in 2026, 2027, 2060, 3050. (heaven forbid we're skeletons on what remains of the internet debating that!)
I could easily say micro-transactions, shareholders, modern strategies for making a video game, the hypothetical straw man consumer who will play anything because of '''graphics''', and or whatever else is said in this thread. But, I think it just like here4outbreak said; lot of it just isn't appealing anymore to some folks. Better to find what is i.m.o.
Though if one gripe I can give even in spite of what I said, a lot of stuff being unfinished certainly sucks the air right out of me, including when they expect a good chunk of change out of you with the promise they'll 'make it better' within a couple updates.
Debating on the question, I find it hard what to really say is: 'Wrong with Modern Gaming in 2025' since will probably say the same things in 2026, 2027, 2060, 3050. (heaven forbid we're skeletons on what remains of the internet debating that!)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Cardboardtubeknight
Cardboardtubeknight
