Are old games better than new games or are boomers blinded with nostalgia...

Multiplayer online games are worse because of teamspeak + social media culture + le epic troll culture.

Back during Quake and UT there was only really text chat.
The games were literally too fast and demanding for people to shit talk during rounds. People were too busy playing and trying to be the best to screw around.
Now online games are all about who can be the biggest faggot doing everything but play the game.

As for singleplayer games and other genres they tended to be more sophisticated because the people making them had higher iqs and made things for people similar to them.

Jokes on you kid, I actually play Save the World

Attached: 1533859919236.png (684x662, 335K)

Oof, I'm sorry. Do they even still give a shit about that rotting carcass?

Games have gone downhill ever since the dawn of the 7th console generation. Instead of nostalgia, younger people are now realizing how very varied and challenging the games from the past could be. They engage ya in a whole different level.

Attached: Doom 1 vs modern FPS.jpg (2724x928, 355K)

That's true of pretty much every medium. You hear the same thing from older anime fans all the time and what nobody ever seems to realize is that when they were getting into anime nobody bothered translating all the trash shows every season and the shows they were watching were pretty much a greatest hits collection of the previous 20 years.

It's basically in maintenance mode. They have yet to add anything truly substantial and most new "heroes" are just skins taken from Battle Royale.

It frustrates me because I see a lot of potential with Save the World, it's not even as grindy as other games of it's type. It's a rotting corpse, but it's one I will hold on until Epic declares it dead.

Attached: 1532663467627.jpg (902x853, 131K)

>Try to remember some really garbage games released last year, really, without googling.
it's not that hard to recall Red Dead 2 or nu-GOW.

Fallout 76, you fucking retard. Wow, so hard.

>born in 1999
>start getting bored of video games around 2017
>go back and play mgs series and ace combat because boomers keep saying old games like those are way better
>turns out they're right
I wish older games emulated better.

>born in 1999

Bait answers. They're not terrible games, disappointing or average sure.

Attached: 1536970921327.png (3840x2160, 2.99M)

Honestly, I think games overall have never been better than they are now.

free to play version when

>They're not terrible games
>FO76
Who's the b8 here?
Or are you working for Zenimax?

Attached: grayons.png (558x614, 45K)

Low IQ nostalgia monkeys are the worst. Games are 1000% better now then they were 10 or 20 years ago.

What i find funny about BR games is they could be so much better than they currently are.
I dont hate the concept I just think they are badly made. So i dont play them.

Basically Whatever the newest game that uses the Unreal game engine is technically is "Unreal."

Bethesda buying id basically killed its reason for existence, which was to develop the game engines that other development teams would use to make real games.

Yeah they were better. These days most of the good games are characterized by being retro in spirit, they want to bring back the fun and excitement of older games that has since been lost. That should tell you everything you need to know. There are very few games that are very distinctly modern and good. With that said, 2007 to about 2014 was probably the worst time for vidya and things have gotten better since.

I doubt it

>I think games overall have never been better than they are now.
That's because you weren't even alive 20-30 years ago, and don't know anything else than this brain-numbing mediocrity, which enables AAA studios to rebrand and sell you shit from quarter century ago as the latest new hotness.

Attached: modern games.png (529x336, 430K)

Listen here sonny, I was around when Fallout 1 was released, Fallout 2 was a big disappointment but man oh man, Fallout 3? Now that was what brought the series to it's roots.

Fallout 76 is a once in a life time experience sonny, I didn't have these fancy new "online-only multiplayer" experiences. You'd better buy a copy to experience the beautiful hand-crafted world. Buy a copy for your friend too.

Attached: 1515375817932.jpg (720x720, 179K)

>are boomers blinded with nostalgia?
I doubt it!

Who was in the wrong in that situation?

No. I was alive 20 years ago. My first console was a Super Nintendo.

I know this is bait but don't you have a $60+tip gacha game to go play?

I think it's gotten so expensive and time consuming to make games that meet current graphical and performance standards and to develop for three platforms at once that big companies are too afraid to do anything interesting or original. Smaller companies that ARE willing to do cool stuff can't match the reach or polish of AAAs and can't afford to promote their games much, so they end up lost in the sea of shovelware on Steam.

>Games are 1000% better now then they were 10 or 20 years ago.
t. zoomer shill.
Nearly every series I once loved is now dead or butchered and blended into goo that even an ADHD 5-year-olds could beat. All while with new games, you gotta look out for microtransanctions, SJW propaganda, 2 hour campaigns with zero replay-value, lack of any modding tools, terrible performance out of box, always-online DMR bullshit... etc.

I just finished the Alien Armageddon mod for Duke 3D. I haven't had so much fun since nuDOOM. I think the older you get, the pickier you get. Then only very rarely will you find something that scratches the itch. The good news is, the old games will never go away.

nice retard post

>Now online games are all about who can be the biggest faggot doing everything but play the game.

100% agree

The difference between games now and then is that back then games could experiment and take risks due to the far lower budgets. This means niche audiences could be targeted more and still manage to pull in profits. Now development costs are so bloated that they have to sell a game to every normie and their dog to get anything out of it. This means dumbing the games down and putting a greater emphasis on focus groups and marketing so the game appeals to everyone. A lot of shit games came out back then but it was worth it because there was so much variety and a ton of good games too.

Completely false. complete opposite. Its now so easy to make games the companies hire idiots to make them and you get trash games.

I was born after XCOM but went ahead and played it after numerous recommendations. Not not only managed to live up to modern-day standards, it was actually more fun and challenging than a lot of the newer stuff

Can someone post the video where it's those two shooting the guy and the cyperpunk music plays.

no, there was just more options to choose.
there was more shitgames but also more better games.
im in serious thought of buying myself a ps4 just for 3 fucking games.
this wouldnt happen with the ps2

This image is the most retarded illustration I've seen in my life.
Of all the games that could be chosen to represent the classic RE series, they chose RE3 - the most action-oriented entry of the fixed-camera series.
Unlike RE1, RE2, and even the titles that came after it, it's very easy to get triple digit handgun bullets if you play smart and hold on it gunpowder until you can make bigger quantities. Also RE3 is designed in such a way that encourages you to shoot through a shitload of zombies, there's a bunch of upgradeable guns, there's different ammo types, multiple shotguns, multiple handguns, a grenade launcher, and if you play the game on normal (aka easy) mode you start off with an assault rifle to shoot your way through the hordes of zombies that fill the starting areas of the game.
In many ways, RE3 is the primogenitor of the action-based RE titles. The retard who made this clearly hasn't played RE3 if he thinks that resource scarcity is big in that title. Goddamn this image pisses me off.

Attached: Jill.jpg (900x816, 240K)

It's their business philosophy. They spend half their budgets on marketing, have by the books and by the numbers checklists for features, massive teams of hundreds if not thousands of employees all whittling away at their own checklist, and they have to appease investors and CEOs who are profit driven above all else. On top of all this, in many cases the narrative is more important than the gameplay, so another huge portion of the budget is just animating cutscenes, hiring voice actors for thousands of lines, etc. and then another huge portion of GRAFICS to drive home muh cinematic narrative. But grafics and performance aren't the main reason, it's the fact that multi-billion dollar corporations make the biggest games now.

It's almost as if people look for different things in games and games from old games provide different things from new games. People here are just to stupid to realize that just because they don't like a game it doesn't make it bad.

>if you play smart
And that's the key word here.
RE3 was made directly for the veteran fans of the series, which is why it dared to crank up the enemy numbers and introduce a number of other surprises: it assumes that the players already know the classic RE formula.
A complete rookie starting straight with 3 would be screwed big time.

I also quite disagree on the notion that RE3 would be an action game. And no, anyone starting on Easy is NOT playing on the "normal" RE difficulty.

>The retard who made this clearly hasn't played RE3 if he thinks that resource scarcity is big in that title
t. kid who never played on Hard.

I think both are true in their own ways. They spend all their time and money on engines and pretty assets and then cheap out on actual gameplay design and writing. That's how you end up with shit like Ubi making the pretty much the same game over and over again but with different skins on it.

Yeah, and even narrative seems to have fallen by the wayside lately. The majority of big AAA releases in the last few years have been totally generic shit with mediorcre voice acting, not much in the way of cutscenes, or any thing else. More and more of them don't even have a story at all, as with the most recent COD or the endless waves of BRs and hero shooters.

I saw an interview a while back with somebody from one of the big AAA studios, I forget which but I think it was EA. He said that studies had shown that the vast majority of copies of their games were sold to people who dropped them within six weeks and only played a few hours a week to begin with. Rather than taking this as a cue to make better games that people would stick with longer, management decided that the thing to do was embrace it and make games that were only designed to last that long and just line up tons of big releases a year so they could sell new games to the same people every six weeks.

>I also quite disagree on the notion that RE3 would be an action game
It's not an action game, it's the classic RE that most heavily relies on action. Compared to RE1 and RE2, it's the most dynamic game. There's the Nemesis chase sequences, there's many rooms where you are overwhelmed with normal zombies, there's the Carlos section which is essentially a run'n'gun segment with Hunters, there's exploding barrels, the environments are all on fire and chaotic rather than the desolate and creepy atmosphere of the previous entries.
>anyone starting on Easy is NOT playing on the "normal" RE difficulty
It's tricky to determine which is the "normal" difficulty in RE3 because they are labeled Easy and Hard. Yes, I agree Hard is the real challenging way to play the game, but also keep in mind that the NA version of RE3 is harder than the JP version where even JP Hard there is not too far from NA Easy so it's hard to claim which is the true "normal" mode is.
tell yourself whatever lie you have to in order to discredit me, but I can assure you I've cleared RE3 multiple times, every difficulty, and at least once on each platform since it was released.