How far we've come, and why I'm not impressed anymore (from an old guy's perspective)

[NoCarrier]

Ok pull up a chair and bear with me for a moment... *puts on reading glasses and tosses a log in the fireplace*.. I'm going to ramble for a bit.

 

I remember my first PC gaming experience as a kid.  The original BattleZone on a 4 color CGA display.  It was the most amazing thing i had ever seen, having never owned a console or gaming machine prior to that.

 

 

Imagine how impressed I was when i first saw games in 16 color EGA.  With dithering there were *gasp* so many colors on the screen.   I played a ton of the Sierra Online adventure games and they looked totally different with 16 colors.

 

 

It wasn't until the late 80s that we got MCGA .. 256 colors.  It was amazing how photo-realistic a 320x200x256 color 100kb GIF looked.  I remember playing the original Doom and Quake.  The rudimentary 3D graphics (no 3D hardware at the time, it was all done on the CPU) were next level.

 

 

 

Until I got my first 3DFX card...an original Monster 3D with a pass through cable from your 2D video card. The original Tomb Raider with real 30fps 3D was just amazing.

 

 

 

Fast forward to 2000-2010..  3D came a long way, as you saw the progression of GPUs and consoles until you got to the PS3.  Don't get me wrong.. games look FANTASTIC now.   But I remember what a huge leap it was going from the PS2 to the PS3.  Similarly going from Half Life to Half Life 2. It seems to me thought that there isn't quite so much innovation these days, and the wow factor is really started to level off.

 

Recently, I picked up a 3080 and started playing COD Cold War.  Aside from some better RTX lighting reflections, it looks and feels like previous COD games (some would argue not as good as MW).  I mean, yeah with gsync, and a large 120hz ultrawide, 10 year old me would have been blown away.  It does help with the experience and increases the feeling of immersion... But is it that much more impressive than say, the last few Far Cry games or even the original Crysis? 

 

I've found myself sitting around with an $800 GPU in my machine, and more excited about overclocking and benchmarking rather than playing games on it.   I look through the catalogs on Steam, Epic, and Origin for hours and can't find a single game I'm willing to invest money (and more importantly TIME) into playing on this new hardware.

 

The same goes for consoles. I was looking at some AC Valhalla footage from a PS5 vs a PS4 .. yeah the textures look better..  but when you're actively playing the game, you really don't notice.  With a few exceptions, pretty much every game from the last 5 years feels almost exactly the same.  I saw Linus's video on the new xbox series X running Doom Eternal.  Yeah it's buttery smooth and somehow they manage to have enough independently moving and flashing objects on the screen at once to give you an epileptic seizure, but it doesn't seem like a huge improvement over Doom 2016, visually and gameplay wise.

 

To be honest, the last game in the last decade that I felt was truly groundbreaking in terms of gameplay, story telling, and graphics was the Witcher 3.  I'm looking forward to Cyberpunk 2077 whenever it comes out, and hope it'll keep me busy for a bit.

 

 

 

 

[BuckGup]

I feel exactly the same. I played games from age 5 all the way to around 14 for countless hours on end everyday. Peak was probably 9 hours a day playing Minecraft and 14 hours a day on the weekends. Needless to say I can't stand gaming anymore and it's very boring and pointless. I have no passion to grind hundreds of hours of my life for meaningless garbage in a game no one will remember in 10 years. I'm much more of a hardware enthusiast these days like yourself and I find this to be much more interesting and also more mentally engaging. Sure gaming is fun but it's not for me anymore. I prefer physically hanging with friends and going out and doing things.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

5 minutes ago, NoCarrier said:

I saw Linus's video on the new xbox series X running Doom Eternal.  Yeah it's buttery smooth and somehow they manage to have enough independently moving and flashing objects on the screen at once to give you an epileptic seizure, but it doesn't seem like a huge improvement over Doom 2016, visually and gameplay wise.

partially because LTT recordes at 24fps, so fps improvments are not seen.

The whole point of doom eternal is that its more of what doom 2016 was, and doom 2016 was leaps and bounds better than it's predecessor, doom3 (i think 3 was the last doom game b4 2016)

[Bouncewasp]

I read this and was like yep, agree, I concur.

 

Admittedly I'm guessing I'm a bit younger as I only recall games from the late 80s (hint - my first PC was a C64).

 

Whilst I dont have a latest series GPU I literally just did buy and watercool an rx5700xt and I particularly agree with the sentiment that I actually seem to enjoy tinkering and benchmarking than actually playing games, and for me that's largely down to the fact that they're pretty much all the same regurgitated. I'm totally with you on the browsing steam for hours and finding nothing thing!

 

I am also hoping for something refreshing from CB2077...

[Semper]

Whilst I don't disagree with how you feel (and even if I did - that doesn't make either of us right or wrong) Perhaps you need to look outside of AAA games.

Indie devs, small teams, single man operations, they're games made by people who love what they do. Offworld Industries has several fanstastic shooters out there, as just one example. Squad is Modern, Post Scriptum is WWII, and Beyond the Wire is WWI They look beautiful, perhaps not AAA levels of beautiful, but they have absolutely amazing sound design.

Stardew Valley is a one man operation, a labor of love, and it's a good game (if you like the genre) in what it does.

I know there's a ton more examples I could give you, but I'm short on time at the moment.

[Letgomyleghoe]

as someone who jumped from an xbox 360 to a mid-low tier build within the last year, it's come a long way, it seems you've been slowly upgrading along the way, think of it like growing up with someone, you don't realize they look different unless you see an old photo of them, or you're away for a long time. 

[Letgomyleghoe]

4 minutes ago, Semper said:

Squad is Modern, Post Scriptum is WWII, and Beyond the Wire is WWI They look beautiful, perhaps not AAA levels of beautiful, but they have absolutely amazing sound design.

how does post scriptum compare to hell let loose? if you've played both.

 

I can also vouch for squad (modern strategy shooter) and hell let loose (wwii strategy shooter) beautiful 3d world, realistic sound, heart racing moments, laughable moments etc, sometimes its not all about graphical improvements either.

[SL Nikki]

I started with ZX Spectrum when I was 10, and upgraded along the way. Older games were more story driven, and had more wit and charm. Modern AAA titles really look fantastic, and though there are some exceptions, I would agree with Semper - Indie is the right way, more original ideas, neat solutions for design etc. As far as AAA goes, well, it all looks like deja vu to me.

[Windows7ge]

I know where you're coming from. We've reached a point in computer technology where we're more focused on higher frame rates at higher resolutions, textures, shading, cleaning up jagged edges, etc than what we use to be focused on which were smoother mechanics, stable frame rates, more polygons so people and objects didn't look like cubes. All of the major things people paid attention to have been refined to a point where all that's left are the finer details most people don't even think about when gaming so newer advancements feel like smaller and smaller leaps.

 

I am curious to see what will come the day computers reach a point where games can't be refined any further or trying to refine them further actually causes backwards progression. What will happen then I wonder.

[NoCarrier]

3 minutes ago, Windows7ge said:

I know where you're coming from. We've reached a point in computer technology where we're more focused on higher frame rates at higher resolutions, textures, shading, cleaning up jagged edges, etc than what we use to be focused on which were smoother mechanics, stable frame rates, more polygons so people and objects didn't look like cubes. All of the major things people paid attention to have been refined to a point where all that's left are the finer details most people don't even think about when gaming so newer advancements feel like smaller and smaller leaps.

 

I am curious to see what will come the day computers reach a point where games can't be refined any further or trying to refine them further actually causes backwards progression. What will happen then I wonder.

I honestly think VR is the path to the future of gaming. It's too bad I get violent nausea after 3 minutes of putting on a vr headset

[Windows7ge]

4 minutes ago, NoCarrier said:

I honestly think VR is the path to the future of gaming. It's too bad I get violent nausea after 3 minutes of putting on a vr headset

Technology might head that direction. What needs to come next is a way to pull it off wirelessly. I've been told that cable isn't wildly comfortable.

[charlie_root]

Graphics and physics might be the only things steadily improving in games, while most of what makes games fun is diminishing. I've fallen out of gaming for years because  I find most games are just not replayable. There are a few reasons why:

 

1.) Too much emphasis on online multiplayer, and little attention to single player modes or any actual storywriting. KOTOR and KOTOR II are examples of great storywriting that you can play over and over again.

 

2.) Maps and storylines are too restrictive. I'm at the point where I only play open world or nearly open world games because they are almost infinitely replayable. For FPS games, Ghost Recon Wildlands is my current favorite because it actually allows for strategy and tactics, not just blasting through a map that funnels you a certain way and limits any creativity.

 

3.) Reliance on DLCs has just gone too far. It feels like a lot of games are just shipped 60% complete and you have to buy DLCs to fill out the rest. That's unacceptable.

[Fasauceome]

Games need to be fun now, they're plenty pretty.

 

Alternatively, become more visually appealing in different ways. Look at cuphead for example, stylistic and gorgeous, intentionally looking old.

 

Alternatively, I rather enjoy remasters of a game I love. The new demon's souls remastered is gorgeous, and the game foundations themselves are so solid that the only thing the game needed was a facelift and technical update.

[PeachGr]

I will agree to witcher 3 that I finished 3 times in a row on hard difficulty. Story is the king but graphics is a thing as well. 

Back at 2000-2010 there was a leap every year. An awesome last gen amazing machine, was garbage in a year, games were innovating like crazy (at least graphic wise). But the thing that is keeping it from happening again is not lack of creativity, but money.

When a company created, let's say valhalla, is targeting two groups: the PS4 players on 2013 hardware and PC players on 5 or 6 years old machines, just to have more potential buyers. The graphs are unlocked to the point that a PC gamer on last gen can get a better experience, but the draw back from old hardware is there. If somehow every player has the very last hardware, the games would look better, but that will not be the case anymore.

Also yes a 5 year machine is still relevant and that's good

[CommanderAlex]

38 minutes ago, jsf said:

3.) Reliance on DLCs has just gone too far. It feels like a lot of games are just shipped 60% complete and you have to buy DLCs to fill out the rest. That's unacceptable.

I feel the Game-as-a-Service/live service model is completely broken. I don't want to spend money on pointless skins or models that "show off" my status in an online game. Look at Battlefield V as an example; they stopped putting out new content with the game back in April, officially killing the game (I know the PR before it even released but besides the point). Now look at a game like Battlefield 4 with 5 DLCs provided you paid for the premium, but you, the consumer knew in advanced that there will be more content coming to the game months from when the main game officially launches. Hell DICE provided more content after and brought back maps from Battlefield 3. I can only really provide my feedback on Battlefield since I love first-person shooters.

 

IMHO, DLCs provided gamers a want to keep playing a game by paying a little more money for content and features, not this live-service model. Live-service model will only go for as long as there is enough money coming into the developers hands from skins and pointless content that doesn't really contribute to the game, just your persona. As a result, these developers only really care about short term profits and leaving the consumer behind. 

[Mark Kaine]

Ya'll feel this way because it's kind of true games are stagnant since a while, even regressing in some areas... 

 

But that's not because of diminishing returns (kinda is maybe) its because of the resolution chasing of the industry, without this games would have much higher fidelity, more new ideas, and would generally keep evolving... But if all that matters is the same shit as yesterday but at higher resolutions it becomes boring and stale. 

 

 

 

[NoCarrier]

2 hours ago, Semper said:

Whilst I don't disagree with how you feel (and even if I did - that doesn't make either of us right or wrong) Perhaps you need to look outside of AAA games.

Indie devs, small teams, single man operations, they're games made by people who love what they do. Offworld Industries has several fanstastic shooters out there, as just one example. Squad is Modern, Post Scriptum is WWII, and Beyond the Wire is WWI They look beautiful, perhaps not AAA levels of beautiful, but they have absolutely amazing sound design.

Stardew Valley is a one man operation, a labor of love, and it's a good game (if you like the genre) in what it does.

I know there's a ton more examples I could give you, but I'm short on time at the moment.

 

yep stardew valley is great.  Its sad that a lot of my gaming time is star dew valley and Simcity 4 (RIP maxis)

[NoCarrier]

1 hour ago, jsf said:

Graphics and physics might be the only things steadily improving in games, while most of what makes games fun is diminishing. I've fallen out of gaming for years because  I find most games are just not replayable. There are a few reasons why:

 

1.) Too much emphasis on online multiplayer, and little attention to single player modes or any actual storywriting. KOTOR and KOTOR II are examples of great storywriting that you can play over and over again.

 

2.) Maps and storylines are too restrictive. I'm at the point where I only play open world or nearly open world games because they are almost infinitely replayable. For FPS games, Ghost Recon Wildlands is my current favorite because it actually allows for strategy and tactics, not just blasting through a map that funnels you a certain way and limits any creativity.

 

3.) Reliance on DLCs has just gone too far. It feels like a lot of games are just shipped 60% complete and you have to buy DLCs to fill out the rest. That's unacceptable.

 

Agree 100% ..  i generally prefer open world and simulation type games for replay value.  I heard the last COD single player takes 3 hours to finish!  Multiplayer is ok for 20 min at a time, but honestly I can only take so much getting sniped by 12 year olds every 3 seconds.

 

[WereCatf]

Meh. I don't need wonderful advancements in graphics to feel excited about a game. We are at a point where I feel most games look good enough for my tastes and any more advancements are welcome, but not the reason for me to buy a game or even want one. I buy games for the gameplay and/or story and there's plenty of good stuff out there for that.

[CarlBar]

IMO the issue here is that where at the end of a console generation. Most major games get released on multiple platforms, and that means game engines that most developers use, (even the smaller developers generally), are designed to work with old console hardware. That tends to put the brakes on a lot of aspects of game design as developers are bumping up against hardware limits. Thats going to change in the near future, but right now next gen consoles are new and everyone's still figuring out both whats truly possibble and whats the best practises. Once they do that consoles will get a lot of growth room and that will translate over to PC as a result. 

 

It's probably worse this time because of RT. It's going to be an amazing feature once developer learn how to use it, but right now they've got a new way of doing a whole bunch of different things they did before. Normally a new fidelity feature layers on-top of what they allready do. RT completely replaces a whole bunch of old stuff whilst achieving a better quality than all that old stuff. Graphic developers are having to relearn a pretty big piece of their trade right now, and until they get upto speed they're going to have to work just to match the quality they got under the old system.

[YellowJersey]

Same. I frequently replay Super Mario World for the SNES and Ocarina of Time for N64 and I still love them, even though N64 graphics haven't exactly aged well and I'd love it if OOT came out for Switch. Breath of the Wild also demonstrated that you don't need to have photo-realistic or hardware-intensive graphics to have a game that is visually stunning. Hell, I've been playing Star Craft and Age of Empires III a lot lately and am not left wanting. I think whether the game is fun to play is going to become more and more important as pushing graphics above all else is going to be yielding diminishing returns. 

 

 I have to admit, I think RT is the next logical step in graphics technology. I don't think VR is quite there yet and I'm skeptical if it will ever be anything much more than niche; we'll see, though.

 I really don't give a hoot about 4k and you young'uns can get off my lawn while I shake my walking stick in fury. (And I shit you not, the numa numa song just came on my playlist while writing this). I know I'm in the minority here, but, on the consumption side, I didn't really notice a difference going from 1080 to 4k and I care even less about 8k.

 Like I a lot of tech, I see what we have in many, though not all, respects as being good enough and the improvements we're seeing don't seem to have the "wow" factor that we used to see. Cameras, cell phones, game consoles, and so on... I imagine that it's getting harder and harder to get people to upgrade (save for consoles due to new games not being available on existing consoles).

 Now, if you'll excuse me, my hip is acting up, so I'm going to lay down and watch ma' stories.

[Giganthrax]

The reason you feel that way is because nowadays most AAA games (and especially ones in longlasting franchises like CoD and Ass Creed) are just copypasted corporate products that cater to the most casual gamers imaginable. Not even the prettiest graphics in the world mean anything if the game contains zero innovation or soul. 

 

Luckily, there are many great indie games out there that look fantastic despite not having AAA graphics. For example, this year I thoroughly enjoyed Mortal Shell, Subnautica, Shadow Tactics: Blades of the Shogun, and Carrion, and I'd honestly say all those games look more atmospheric and pleasing to the eye than the majority of AAA games that came out this year.

 

In fact, I'm really happy that it's becoming easier and easier for indie devs to make games with beautiful graphics. Imagine how wonderful it'll be in 10-20 years when we get to play games that don't look much worse than the newest AAA offering, but are also innovative and "risky" in a way that only an indie game can be. :) 

[Semper]

3 hours ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

how does post scriptum compare to hell let loose? if you've played both.

 

I can also vouch for squad (modern strategy shooter) and hell let loose (wwii strategy shooter) beautiful 3d world, realistic sound, heart racing moments, laughable moments etc, sometimes its not all about graphical improvements either.

HLL Plays a lot more like Battlefield, it's an arcade shooter.

Post Scriptum plays more like Squad, or a slower-paced Rising Storm. The two don't really compare all that well, they play completely differently. With that said though, I don't like HLL nearly as much. Post Scriptum is my choice,  Warzone if I want an arcade shooter.

[PiberiusWilde]

I do agree. Games today are very very boring. The stories are too linier, once you're done, you're done there's nothing much else to do.

 

That's why I really enjoyed RTS and Economic games. 'Cause most of them don't have stories. You just play until you've defeated your opponent or 'till you're rich in economy games. I loved the fact that most of these games the difficulty is customizable so you can challenge your selves easily. Making it more fun to play.

 

I also enjoy simulator a lot. I've been playing or simming with FSX since 2010 and I still played it today. Mostly 'cause my laptop couldn't handle MSF lol.

[Guest]

Totally left out VR gaming. I think this is the leap past a flat (or slightly curved) screen.

The OP was short. Kinda bummed, actually kicked my feet up for this one. 

4 color CGA brings back some memories. I sometimes miss the look of an old green monochrome sometimes actually.