>

it could be that way because of nostalgia like i used to love playing minecraft on my xbox but now its kinda boring and same with gta 5 cause i would play that when i was like ten but now im 14 and its just not as fun
20 years ago was 2003, we were well into 3D era by then. Halo was out and we were well on our way to Halo 2. Gamecube had some games that still hold up aesthetically (Luigi's Mansion, Zelda Windwaker) we were well past "barely rendering things on a screen". And people were already whining that the gaming industry was going downhill.
This year had Elden Ring, which to my understanding sucked up a lot of gamers' time and was considered a huge success. It's no surprise talk was so limited when the big early year release was such a time sink. On the other side of the pond Xenoblade 3 released to quite a lot of critical praise and only a small handful of minor, albeit hilarious bugs. 
That's not even getting into the indie side of things. I haven't even played this year's because I'm still catching up on on all the great games that came out in the last couple years. It Takes Two was a phenomenally fun game. Hades was the best roguelike I've ever played (and I've played many). I can't wait to get to this year's set. 
All franchises and studios hit a creative roadblock at sometime or another. Many big successes get tempted by greed and cutting corners at some point or another. Try branching out from the big titles and give newer ones a try. >

There’s tons of amazing games. You’re only focusing on popular games. >

This.
All these games tried to make too many people happy and didn't focus on one thing.
Look at a game like outer wilds, a beautiful game that knows what it wants to be and executes that one thing perfectly. >

Game awards will also appeal to people who like and pay attention to mainstream AAA games. Whereas smaller games might get "indie GOTY" or other smaller side categories. But there's no way some of those games are going to beat out colossus games like Ragnarok or Smellden Ring.  
I can't take OOP's take seriously because looking at game awards for good takes, or only taking AAA titles into consideration is going to neglect the volumes of other great games out there. I mean, I can't even go onto Steam without getting a bit overwhelmed at the depths of options. >

Award events in general is literally just a popularity contest. Doesn't matter how good something or someone is if nobody knows about it. You could have created what is objectively the best game in the world, but if only you have played it, it doesn't matter. 
Stray is a great game, but its not a AAA game so it was obviously not mentioned in that award event. >

There are some golden indie games but due to the heavy concentration of games there is quite a bit of landfill quality games >

Honestly youtuber reviewers are a super helpful resource nowadays. Top 10 lists for whatever category you're looking for have helped me find a ton of great games. And also avoid some sucky ones. >

This is true >

What a surprise, you like the games that made your childhood. Thats normal. It’s called memories, not surprising or unpopular I think. >

I mean you can call it that too. I just always say I lost the will to live but eh, tomato tomato >

Maybe consider that you’re not as into video games as you were as a kid. It’s perfectly normal to not have the time and energy as an adult. I still play call of duty and sometimes I’ll be bored within a couple hours without any fault to the game. 
Besides, there’s tons of games out there indie or AAA that you haven’t touched before that could be your next favorite game. >

Hell I had much more fun playing halo 4 many years ago than I did with Zelda Ocarina of Time a few months ago, even though objectively OoT is like, infinitely better designed, and easier to come back to today, compared to the mess of a game that was halo 4, it was an absolute fucking masterpiece. 
Yet I enjoyed it less and it's almost certainly due to the fact that I'm older and more depressed than when I was a kid who just got an Xbox 360 and any video game you gave me would've been a masterpiece in my eyes. 
Age is honestly one of the biggest factors in terms of enjoyment when it comes to any media and I wish people would stop the whole "old thing good new thing bad" circlejerk cuz the best games releasing today are undeniably an improvement over what was releasing decades ago. >

I stopped reading once you mentioned cyberpunk. It’s been fixed for a very long time now and it’s an absolutely fantastic game. 
I don’t think you’re a gamer as much as you once wanted to be. I beat 49 games last year (I write them all down) so the fact that you can’t find ONE game to play? You’re just not into video games bro. >

Personally, im unimpressed that Cunerpunk was “fixed”. Its what they should have released to begin with. Like congratulating a dad for coming back after  abandoning his family.
Its exactly the fact that these games that are nobodys passion projects coming the market as AAA titles to begin with. >

Are you seriously comparing video games to a dad abandoning his family hahaha okay buddy >

He did so to explain why it’s illogical. Not to say it has the same degree of severity or importance. >

He might as well said hitler is bad and so is cyberpunk. That’s how stupid the comparison was. >

The two situations being of different degrees of severity doesn’t make the comparison stupid. The thing about a logical proposition is that it’ll be the same no matter what you replace X and Y with. >

Yes and that’s not the case with his example. Jfc >

It is. The illogical thing he pointed out was that people are praising the bare minimum, what should always be done. >

Don't bother...it's a little disheartening that this guy got upvoted for hating the concept of simile. Either really likes cyberpunk 77 or really hates his dad. >

Maybe you should stop reading Game Informer and realize that gaming outside of AAA devs exists. >

Is it so hard to want a good triple A game? Indie games are fun but are nowhere near the quality of what a good AAA game can be >


Is it so hard to want a good triple A game? 

...No, it's very easy to want that.  It's hard to get that, yes.

Indie games are fun but are nowhere near the quality of what a good AAA game can be

This made me chuckle. >

I've been gaming for 30+ years and honestly think it's better than ever.  Some of my favorite franchises and developers have declined, but new ones have come up to take their place and some (like Resident Evil) went through a decline in quality but bounced back.  Microtransactions suck, but those are extremely easy to avoid.  Overall, I think writing has gotten better than ever in games.  

How in the world is it possible that 15-20 years ago when we were barely able to render a couple of pixels on the screen

I think you need to revise that timeframe a bit. GTA: Vice City is 20 years ago.  We were doing a lot more than just rendering a couple of pixels then

The last year's game awards says it all, besides Elden Ring and God of War, there was almost no other game mentioned.

For games from this year. I liked Triangle Strategy a lot and am playing Horizon: Forbidden West now which so far is great.  (I also have Bayonetta 3, Midnight Suns, Stray, and Tunic in my backlog). >

And then you take a look at the indie side of things and realize we are in the golden age of gaming.
Video games are art. Soulless corporations don't make good art.
It's like saying the paintings at Walmart aren't as good as the ones done by Michaelangelo lol >

I think most indie games are shovelware garbage.  The difference is that the ones that become well known become that way because they are great games, while the mediocre or bad ones never make it to the public eye at all.  Meanwhile even the worst title from a major developer has a large advertising budget behind it.  It creates a false perception that there's a greater percentage of high quality indie games than there actually is. >

Most of the games that have extreme mainstream popularity are based on something edgy, violent, or morally questionable. Stealing cars and killing cops, or military combat with no small amount of contemporary political controversy worked into the mix. >

Wtf kinda take is that. Minecraft, terraria and stardew valley are 3 very popular games i can say off the top of my head with none of that. League is probably the most popular game of all time, and it doesnt rely on any of that. Pokemon, mario and zelda, 3 of the some of the biggest gaming brands to exist, dont do that. Just because FPS games are popular, doesnt mean they are the only popular games >


The last year's game awards says it all, besides Elden Ring and God of War, there was almost no other game mentioned.

I mean depending on what source you are viewing if you look at the other nominees then you're wrong.  There were games mentioned liked Xenoblade Chronicles 3, Neon White, Horizon Forbidden West, A Plague Tale: Requiem, Tunic, Mario & Rabbids, Vampire Survivors, Immortality etc. >

Elder Scrolls is dead??
Ok then. >

Did you hear anything about elder scrolls since that teaser that dropped 5 years ago? >

You don't hear anything about any of them, that's the way it works. Starfield first, then TES VI, then FO5. It's been said so many times. Doesn't mean it's dead, like Half-Life dead.
It's just gestating. >

You lost your imagination and sense of wonder? >

Ah yes the typical old good new bad mentality. >

Totally agree, I basically only play decade old or more games. Tried a few new ones recently, and none of them are all that great. I guess I'll just mod Skyrim until I die >

Umm, mass effect, elder scrolls, and fallout aren't dead. 
Tes 6 will come after Starfield and fallout 5 after that.
Games of the past were only good because you remember the good games and not the bad ones. >


Tes 6 will come

One dollar please for every time I've heard that >

There is literally no reason to think it won't. It has been announced already. Bethesda does not have a history of canceling games. >

It will come. But will it be good? Given Bethesda's track record lately, unlikely.
Doom Eternal was the only good game they have put out in the last 5 years. Starfield is extremely worrying considering how much detail they have hidden. >

Bethesda didn't make doom...... They only have TES and fallout, and now Stanfield. >

Hot take (on Reddit): gaming becomes exponentially less appealing after high school >

For me, it was after marriage. >

I really appreciate gaming because it keeps my wife out of my hair a bit. >

None of the games you say are dead are really dead. Mass effect got a remaster in 2021, the elder scrolls is getting a new game, and fallout has been confirmed for after that. >

OP... Have you considered that "amazing games with captivating stories and amazing gameplay" actually take time to make? Games of todays caliber take much more time and budget than retro games or 5th gen games did. It takes more time and budget to create a fully 3D open world game with astonishing graphics and amazing story and more up to date technology like Elden Ring, than it would take to create 2D open world game with amazing story and admittedly still astonishing graphics like Chrono Trigger. I'm not saying this to discredit any developers as I like to believe that every game dev tries their best, but I say this to say that Elden Ring is a much bigger pie than Chrono Trigger. Bigger pies must stay in the oven longer to cook evenly. But because game companies have to try to appease impatient fans (and also because they're too money hungry for their own good.) They don't let that pie sit in their long enough. So I ask that you don't start complaining that the pie isn't finished, or comes out burnt. I ask that you try to see that you might be part of the problem. Wait... good games come with patience. >

We also have tools, methods, and funding to make these games come quicker. These companies just want to spend as little as possible in order to make bank knowing people will still buy it. Look at pokemon, they make billions and billions but spend a penny on their main games and couldn’t even spend money on play testers. Perhaps greedy Corps are the cause and your idea of how long a AAA game takes to make is wrong >

You have to dig a bit further down than 1cm to realize there's literally hundreds of amazing games to play now.  Just off the top of my head, a game that really shocked me. 
Try - Outer Wilds >

Seems like you only look at mainstream titles >

There's a lot of reasons why gaming feels like it's gone down the tubes. Some of it is because we Millennial and Gen X gamers are just getting older, and a lot of modern games just aren't made with us in mind. But there is more to it than that because I hear a lot of the same complaints echoed by younger gamers as well. 
First problem is the AAA industry now expects that every new game should be making GTAV or Fortnite money. They're laser focused on these ballooning budget, tent pole, games-as-a-service releases that take years to put out. But they also take the safe route, focusing on sequels and accessibility rather than innovation and novelty. Nobody's really pushing the boundaries of the medium anymore. Games also get prematurely rushed out the door to meet earnings calls for the quarter. There's furthermore a lot of deceptive marketing going on, that pushes many games as something they are not. 
They've also gone whole hog on monetization, which is now the primary revenue source for a lot of games. As such, games are tailored specifically around this mechanic. Studios have algorithms in place to alter a game's meta, the math stuff going on out of sight of the player. This is done to keep them in a cycle of frustration, just enough to "encourage" them to buy power ups, but not enough to get them to quit playing altogether. Many big studios even hire teams of psychologists to optimize for this. It's really insidious. But in terms of quality, it's turned many games into Skinner Boxes. 
I also don't think there's the same level of talent in the industry as there was 20 years ago, when the biggest innovations were taking place. Programmers especially. Look at how many games are so poorly optimized to run on even consoles. It's like they take whatever the engine craps out, without even bothering to test for performance or bugs. Some of that might be due to time pressures. But there's no shortage of devs online bitching about their jobs, gamers, or just want to turn gaming into their own political soap box. There's definitely a toxic culture running rampant through Western studios.
On the indie side of things, because game development tools have become democratized, there's a lot of low effort shovelware cluttering onlike stores like Steam and the eShop. Basic asset flips designed to make a quick buck. Same with Early Access and Kickstarter scams. Though consumers have their part in this too for still supporting all of the above. People still buy broken games. People don't inform themselves. I don't want to sound like a hipster, but gaming has definitely gotten worse since it went mainstream. 
That said, there's still a lot of good games out there. You just have to look at more AA titles. Plus there's still a ton of old stuff you probably haven't played. >

Entertainment as a whole has become a joke. Every thing feels saturated. >

Tangential but I've always been amazed at how powerful phones have become but they game for them are basically the worst ever made. >

I've grown to see all of my favorite franchises I grew up with (Halo, Dragon Age, Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, COD, etc) go to the shitter. AAA titles are a mess all the god damned time, and it pisses me off. I've made it a priority to avoid most AAA studio games because of the shitty effort put into them. Halo Infinite has recently reminded me why I have this stance. >

Fun fact, you're wrong. The best games ever made were in the 90s and the best music was in the 90s. When I was a kid.
Ah, the regular "today's games are bad" posts. I haven't been hearing this since the 90s.
I remember back in the 2000s it was, "PlayStation games aren't as good as the really good SNES games." Then it was, "The PS2 has nothing to offer that's really better than PS1." Etc.
Go talk to people who grew up playing SCUMM games and gaming ended with LucasArts. 
Talk to people who grew up in the 2000s and gaming ended with the GameCube or so.
Fun fact: you're getting older and your nostalgia glands are pumping hard because nothing hits quite like playing a game from when you were 9-15 or so. Welcome to adulthood. I can't wait to hear about how music from 2000-2010 was the best music ever and nothing will ever compare. >

i grew up in the 90s. 90s music sucked. idk what you're talking about. >

It was sarcasm-- I was poking fun at nostalgia.
Plenty of great music in the 90s, though. Green Day, Nas, Wu-Tang, Nirvana, early Foo Fighters, early Radiohead, NIN, REM, 2Pac, peak Beastie Boys.
But there was also great music in the 80s. And the 70s. And the 2000s. And the 2010s.
People get stuck on the feeling of their youth and stop giving in to new experiences. Nostalgia was once classified as a disorder for a reason. >

Unfortunately AAA games are in a horrible place. There are some good indies though. >

I’m really enjoying AC Origins, if you haven’t tried it. Then again I thought people hated the game and turns out it’s quite liked anyway. >

It’s because many of the games are 1. Not being made by the original creators and the new ones only understand surface level themes. 2. Corporate greed. 3. Topped off with increasing expectation for games to be better. Because if the same company is making the same game for years. You expect certain processes and procedures to be streamlined, but don’t. >

people are mentioning indie games, but i can rarely find something without a bunch of flaws that make me not want to play it. i’m not even talking glitches, just weird UI things or goals being unclear. >

Neon Abyss? Very fun. Old school and awesome. >

I thought I was lucky back in may day to have Pac man and Space Invaders. >

those games exist, they just aren't being made by the top level producers. >

I hear this take a lot, and it's simply that the more marketed games suck more than they used to.  There's a huge amount of mid sized games that are incredible, and that's where you should be looking for great games nowadays.  There might be a few great games that are widely marketed each year, and a bunch of them will be a disappointment, but the mid sized or indie games are where you should be looking. >

Go on steam winter sale, buy 10 indie games for 60$, enjoy the next couple hundred hours of gaming. >

That’s why indies exist! They’re not as big and popular like the huge franchises that make millions, but they’re worth your time and money. >

Lots of good games out there. I think you are focusing to much on AAA games >

Just send me the money, I know tons of games I think are worth it >

We still have fromsoft! >

this is definitely a popular opinion now. >

I’ve been waiting forever for beyond good and evil 2 >

The big problem is not the studios but the playerbase. The general video game player base has increased massively. However, as with everything, popularity comes with a lack of "gatekeeping" and, therefore, a lower of overall value per dollar.
The easiest solution to revitalizing the gaming world is boycotting low quality, but we all know that isn't happening. >

Elder Scrolls is certainly not dead >

Just wait till postmodern gaming