Support NeoGAF

[Hawking Radiation]

I've found new hobbies that I enjoy and gaming has taken a bit of a back seat. Now when I do game its for not more than 3 hours (at most).

Also like some have mentioned before, games don't have the WOW factor anymore. I think the only upcoming games that will WOW me is Starfield and GTA6. Not necsarilly in terms of visuals but more in terms of interactivity with the open world.

I've said this for ages that I want games to have x100 times the interactivty they have today. Open worlds should feel alive. That would make me enjoy games much more. Linear games can be fun as well as long as they're also not static. A good example is Last Of Us 2.

 

[HazukiSensei]

Nostalgia is dangerous, you only remember the best part.

Younger people will say the same things and miss the good old days playing Fortnite.

for example...Rockstar used to release a title every 2 years. now they release 1 a generation...

that's objectively a worse situation, not an age thing

valve was active, now it's dead. Bioware is a shell of what it was and all these devs used to progress the medium. etc. we're 2 years into a generation and have one title that looks like it was built for this generation (ratchet).

these are bad things. not an age thing. help gaming out and acknowledge them please.

if you're 17 or something then I get it.

 

[ThatOneGrunt]

It's just about knowing your own tastes. The games I've played the most this year have probably TOTK and The Compound for the Quest. I tried Spider Man Remastered and thought it was so boring that I never finished it. It doesn't matter that seemingly everyone else loved it. Just wasn't my taste.

 

[Minsc]

If you're a PC gamer, you've been hearing this for well, probably your entire life. You probably don't even register it anymore. Gaming is dying = gaming is fine.

 

[Destruction-1002]

I've found new hobbies that I enjoy and gaming has taken a bit of a back seat. Now when I do game its for not more than 3 hours (at most).

Also like some have mentioned before, games don't have the WOW factor anymore. I think the only upcoming games that will WOW me is Starfield and GTA6. Not necsarilly in terms of visuals but more in terms of interactivity with the open world.

I've said this for ages that I want games to have x100 times the interactivty they have today. Open worlds should feel alive. That would make me enjoy games much more. Linear games can be fun as well as long as they're also not static. A good example is Last Of Us 2.

R* will only re-release GTA 5 on PS6

Dont be a complete moron, its been 10 years since GTA 5 came out, while there are 5 years gap between GTA 4 and GTA 5

 

[proandrad]

Current games are great, it's just a bunch of millennials going through depression.

 

[Punished Miku]

Nostalgia is dangerous, you only remember the best part.

Younger people will say the same things and miss the good old days playing Fortnite.

It is dangerous. You become trapped in the past and stop experiencing the present.

 

[bender]

If you're a PC gamer, you've been hearing this for well, probably your entire life. You probably don't even register it anymore. Gaming is dying = gaming is fine.

Maybe I'm senile but it seems this meme popped up in the late 2000s and onwards. While the golden age of PC gaming is dead that has little to do with the platform and more to do with the budgets of games these days and the need for platform agnosticism and for casting as wide a net as possible with design principles (this is also largely why a lot of people think "gaming is dying". There are exceptions to that rule of course and those exceptions are most often found on PC. Hardware prices aside, it's hard to even be flippant with "PC gaming is dying" these days as the platform has arguable the strongest position it has ever experienced.

Also, go for the eyes Boo.

 

[violence]

I enjoyed video games more when I was a dumb teenager. But the games themselves are better than ever probably. I just hate how risk averse they have to be today. Doing something unique is considered a risk.

 

[64bitmodels]

They kind of are though. playing them 10 years later won't have the same impact

But why is that an issue? good games are good forever regardless of time, hype or impact. Whatever impact mario world made on the industry, it is a great fun game with great Mario gameplay. That's surely enough to be fun. If you needed to be there to understand why a game is a masterpiece maybe you need to reevaluate your opinions.

similar to how when games were truly evolving, we didn't necessarily need to play say... streets of rage, the games our dads played, because devil may cry was immensely more technically and mechanically advanced than anything they experienced.

Except that there are reasons to play SOR over DMC. Co op for example is a big one. Being able to pick up weapons is another. The atmosphere, music and art direction work too.

These are vastly different games, one doesn't replace the other. DMC does not outclass SOR in every aspect hence why both are still good games and neither are dated. This can be said for any game, any time period, any generation.

f you were told that ELDEN RING was considered groundbreaking in 2022 by a time traveler visiting you in 2004 after hl2....You'd be sad.

Except that you wouldn't. A gigantic open world RPG with hard as hell bosses and cool weapons would make any 2000s teenager get excited.
Also, you keep bringing up 2007 as this holy bastion year for video games (which it is, I won't deny.)
But 2011 was not far off and that's the year Dark Souls released, to major critical acclaim too. Gaming standards couldn't have dropped so significantly after 2007 especially when 2008 was also a banger year and 2009 had some gems too.

Maybe souls games are revered because they are amazing games and not because of so called fallen standards....

 

[HazukiSensei]

But why is that an issue? good games are good forever regardless of time, hype or impact. Whatever impact mario world made on the industry, it is a great fun game with great Mario gameplay. That's surely enough to be fun. If you needed to be there to understand why a game is a masterpiece maybe you need to reevaluate your opinions.

sure, they are good. but no game is AS good as when it first released. especially groundbreaking ones just doesn't work like that sorry. and I know it's not your fault.

My whole post elaborated why it isn't the same thing. and I even pre-emptively said "however it's not because all other titles after are SO evolved i.e. in a progressive universe where valve was still making games. half life 4 would be out and there'd be no NEED to play half life 2 theoretically...if only for story"

in order to stop you from making the statement "well if time changes the game then re-evaluate your opinions" and you STILL made that argument lol so frustrating.

Except that there are reasons to play SOR over DMC. Co op for example is a big one. Being able to pick up weapons is another. The atmosphere, music and art direction work too.

These are vastly different games, one doesn't replace the other. DMC does not outclass SOR in every aspect hence why both are still good games and neither are dated. This can be said for any game, any time period, any generation.

you are getting too specific and missing the point, I was comparing some old beat em up to another beat em up. could be any title. let me clarify, there is a difference between the boomer who is talking about "games aren't what they used to be" in the sense that the games they played were more simplistic. whereas when we say "games aren't what they used to be" it's because the NEW games are less complex in some ways than the older titles. whether it be in ambition, story, rpg elements, or combat mechanics. that's why I used assassins creed as a reference to compare to warrior within, warrior within was more mechanically deep, and they watered it down for commercialism.

same with souls games, for me, if that series had intricate mechanics where I could also convey creativity and combinations, I'd be in heaven.
but for me, the game is mechanically too simplistic. I should be saying the opposite as an older gamer.

Except that you wouldn't. A gigantic open world RPG with hard as hell bosses and cool weapons would make any 2000s teenager get excited.

but we already had morrowind and two years later oblivion, san andreas was already out too lol. we'd expect more 20 years later. especially when the 2004 kid sees that the mouths don't move in a 2022 title, with no physics.

Also, you keep bringing up 2007 as this holy bastion year for video games (which it is, I won't deny.)
But 2011 was not far off and that's the year Dark Souls released, to major critical acclaim too. Gaming standards couldn't have dropped so significantly after 2007 especially when 2008 was also a banger year and 2009 had some gems too.

things went down hill 2011. and souls benefited.

skyrim was dumbed down and introduced procedural generation and was less complex than oblivion. yet was the most successful, so bethesda kept up that mentality. uncharted 3 was weaker than uncharted 2. call of duty started becoming maligned by the hard-core community. Witcher 2 came out and barely anyone knew about it.

Maybe souls games are revered because they are amazing games and not because of so called fallen standards....

would elden ring even win goty if it came out that year? look at that list again and think about elden ring fighting all those games at their FIRST inception.

that's why I think our standards lowered.

 

[nial]

Gaming died in 2021, it was good before that.

 

[Danjin44]

To me video game is great as ever the only difference is we have internet now and people would cry and whine with every stupid little thing.

 

[64bitmodels]

but no game is AS good as when it first released.

are you frigging serious right now.

Patches and updates and DLC exist. newer versions come out with more content- this was a thing even back in the 90s and 2000s. Games over time get mods to enhance the experience. Deep sales are never at the launch of the game, either.

then there are live updated games like Minecraft, Terraria, and Stardew Valley that get more content through updates. Terraria is in a completely different state now than it was back in 2011. I wouldn't want to play the original compared to the recent versions, these days.

"however it's not because all other titles after are SO evolved i.e. in a progressive universe where valve was still making games. half life 4 would be out and there'd be no NEED to play half life 2 theoretically...if only for story"

I don't care if there were future entries or not. They wouldn't add much to the point i was making, which is that truly amazing games don't need the impact of the first release to be beloved. That's why I still made the argument. If a game 'aged badly' then there were flaws in it to begin with that detrimented it as a whole, you just ignored them.

it's because the NEW games are less complex in some ways than the older titles.

You could've used a better example than DMC to SoR then. Compare a sequel title and not 2 different titles in 2 different genres.

Maybe this works for something like Assassins creed (who i should say, is from a washed up POS studio which the majority of gamers fucking hate...) But a great majority of modern game Sequels aren't like that. GOW to GOWR did not lose complexity, it gained it. Same for Spiderman to Miles Morales. Titanfall 1 to Titanfall 2, Spelunky 1 to Spelunky 2, BOTW to TOTK, Jedi Fallen Order to Jedi Survivor, Street Fighter 5 to 6, so on and so forth. Just like there are games that dumb down mechanics from the previous entry there are sequels that increase complexity. They're usually in the newer franchises that haven't been around for 14 entries and are washed up.

same with souls games, for me, if that series had intricate mechanics where I could also convey creativity and combinations, I'd be in heaven.

Elden Ring has the most build variety and possible combinations out of any souls game, due to having the most weapons, armor, options like ashes of war, etc available. It has quite a lot of complexity in its level design, sidequests, bosses, and combat.

but we already had morrowind and two years later oblivion, san andreas was already out too lol. we'd expect more 20 years later. especially when the 2004 kid sees that the mouths don't move in a 2022 title, with no physics.

Morrowind & Oblivion were first person games that didn't have as much variety in the environments and didn't have nearly as much of a striking artstyle. The combat wasn't as indepth, flashy looking or complex. Not to mention the animations in Oblivion don't even come close to the animations in Elden Ring. Or any Souls game for that matter, bethesda games have terrible looking animations.

This also applies to San Andreas, too. In fact, IMO San Andreas is the worst of the 6th gen GTA trilogy for many reasons. Vice City and GTA3 were more focused and superior games. and even then none of those games hold a candle to Elden Ring in artstyle or combat. Not to mention the emergent exploration ER encourages that SA and GTA3/VC don't have in comparison due to the mission based structure of progression. You can explore in San Andreas but it'll never assist you in progressing throughout the game. Whereas exploration is part of the progression in Souls, not just story wise but character wise too, walking around the environment and fighting enemies gets you runes and helps you level up.

This is all subjective, but that's kind of the point. Your idea that Souls would be a side game in 2007 or that Elden Ring would be a disappointment to any 2004 kid who just got done playing HL2 is all subjective. The only difference is that you're stating it like it's a fact.... it's not.

 

[rkofan87]

AAA Gaming is currently in one of those slumps where people are getting tired of the current dominate genre (open world RPG-lites, think what happened to military shooters). The current economy + ever increasing development costs are also making them play it safe rather than take risks which are also not sitting well with some people.

ff16 is aaa and its kick ass imo

 

[phant0m]

i'm having a ridiculous amount of fun with remnant 2 right now, then BG3 later this week which will keep me busy til starfield.

 

[HazukiSensei]

are you frigging serious right now.

Patches and updates and DLC exist. newer versions come out with more content- this was a thing even back in the 90s and 2000s. Games over time get mods to enhance the experience. Deep sales are never at the launch of the game, either.

then there are live updated games like Minecraft, Terraria, and Stardew Valley that get more content through updates. Terraria is in a completely different state now than it was back in 2011. I wouldn't want to play the original compared to the recent versions, these days.

I don't care if there were future entries or not. They wouldn't add much to the point i was making, which is that truly amazing games don't need the impact of the first release to be beloved. That's why I still made the argument. If a game 'aged badly' then there were flaws in it to begin with that detrimented it as a whole, you just ignored them.

not when the games are 20 years old or older, no. Especially if they broke new ground in a specific area and pushed the medium and showed you something you've never seen at the time. you are NOT getting the same experience 20 years or more later. and it doesn't mean the game isn't good.

you can't honestly tell me that playing ocarina of time today, has the same impact as it did in 1998. or that the gravity gun in hl2 has the same impact as it did in 2004.

and the whole point of me even bringing that up is this: That risky next level LEAP in tech, engine, physics, design is what wowed us, on top of being a great game. You would get BOTH aspects fairly often at one point in the industry.

I think that's where we are minterpretating each other, those games were great games, but also were technological marvels and leaps. playing it 20 years later will only give the "oh this is a great game" piece. but the technological marvel awe inspiring piece will be missing.

Elden ring is a great game for example. But it isn't a technological leap, or feat, or anything like that. at one point we expected both in order to show us what the next level was. and in my opinion, younger gamers aren't getting that at all lately.

You could've used a better example than DMC to SoR then. Compare a sequel title and not 2 different titles in 2 different genres.

Maybe this works for something like Assassins creed (who i should say, is from a washed up POS studio which the majority of gamers fucking hate...) But a great majority of modern game Sequels aren't like that. GOW to GOWR did not lose complexity, it gained it.

I don't really agree with that at all lol I am more in with the youtuber "underthemayo" on GoW R. it's a prime example of following current souls esque trends rather than becoming more complex.

completely lost it's vertically, finishers are more simplistic. and it's difficult in...a bad way. not a good way like doom eternal.

and ubisoft used to be good, and are a prime example of what's going on today.

Same for Spiderman to Miles Morales. Titanfall 1 to Titanfall 2, Spelunky 1 to Spelunky 2, BOTW to TOTK, Jedi Fallen Order to Jedi Survivor, Street Fighter 5 to 6, so on and so forth. Just like there are games that dumb down mechanics from the previous entry there are sequels that increase complexity. They're usually in the newer franchises that haven't been around for 14 entries and are washed up.

well at least in the bolded were on the same page that they aren't what they used to be. however they were important because now, those genres are kind of....lacking in appearances.

Elden Ring has the most build variety and possible combinations out of any souls game, due to having the most weapons, armor, options like ashes of war, etc available. It has quite a lot of complexity in its level design, sidequests, bosses, and combat.

when I think of good quests, I think of the Witcher 3, morrowind, Oblivion, new Vegas, and cyberpunk. Elden Ring isn't doing what those games do as far as storytelling and quest creativity. in Elden everything is ultimately going to be a combat encounter. in Oblivion I was the death master of a tomb exploration with npc's competing, and I chose how they died. Elden ring ain't doing that shit.

Morrowind & Oblivion were first person games that didn't have as much variety in the environments and didn't have nearly as much of a striking artstyle. The combat wasn't as indepth, flashy looking or complex. Not to mention the animations in Oblivion don't even come close to the animations in Elden Ring. Or any Souls game for that matter, bethesda games have terrible looking animations.

yet those games were ironically more interactive and had better quests.

This also applies to San Andreas, too. In fact, IMO San Andreas is the worst of the 6th gen GTA trilogy for many reasons. Vice City and GTA3 were more focused and superior games. and even then none of those games hold a candle to Elden Ring in artstyle or combat. Not to mention the emergent exploration ER encourages that SA and GTA3/VC don't have in comparison due to the mission based structure of progression. You can explore in San Andreas but it'll never assist you in progressing throughout the game. Whereas exploration is part of the progression in Souls, not just story wise but character wise too, walking around the environment and fighting enemies gets you runes and helps you level up.

my point was that Elden Ring is not a 20 year leap in tech and ambition. it's just a different game and takes advantage of some aspects of new tech lol but not enough to look like a 20 year advancement over half life 2. it should at least have moyths that move. and proper physics.

This is all subjective, but that's kind of the point. Your idea that Souls would be a side game in 2007 or that Elden Ring would be a disappointment to any 2004 kid who just got done playing HL2 is all subjective. The only difference is that you're stating it like it's a fact.... it's not.

well we played all these games.

and that's why I asked, do you think elden ring, even in its current state versus those older games in 2007. would dominate in the same way it did in 2022?

I don't think so, do you? and if we kinda agree on that (even if you don't want to admit it) those are games from fukkin 2007, that would have a good chance to beat it out in a goty....

he'll, I think it's unacceptable that a game from 2022 should even lose a graphics battle in a screeshot comparison. open world or not.
like crysis is beating elden ring in Screenshot battle, and by 2022...it should have caught up lol That's ridiculous. that's why it's disappointing.

crysis shouldn't be looking better than anything if we were progressing the way we SHOULD be.

 

[Arsic]

If you’ve been playing long enough the capability for a game to impress you or hook you has probably gone down substantially.

A lot of AAA titles I drop mid way even though they initially impress . Examples: ghost of Tsushima , final fantasy 16, horizon forbidden west, AC Valhalla, Days Gone, Triangle Strategy, Octopath 2, and many more for me.

Every title above for example is top notch gaming, but I haven’t completed any of them and dropped them all. Initial impressions for games are glowing, reviews are aces, but I would argue the completion to attach ratio for games has probably nose dived for consumers the longer the medium has existed.

More and more games release every year. Quality stuff, and some years(like this one), they get jam packed so much you’re bound to skip or just drop games to get to the next hype one.

Plenty of issues with games exist though nowadays especially from vocal minorities in places like Reddit. Negativity just is easy clicks in videos too. Much better to shit on a game and company than praise a game.

All that said I think we’ve gained some things and lost others as long as I’ve been playing for 30 years now. I’d gladly have more innovation at the cost of polish and visuals. Games like Inscryption show there’s still hope for truly unique games or twists to breathe fresh air into what we’ve come to expect or know.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Nostalgia is dangerous, you only remember the best part.

Younger people will say the same things and miss the good old days playing Fortnite.

Nostalgia and currentcy bias can both be blinding.

 

[Rickyiez]

Because most people on internet enjoy act of whining and complaining more than playing actual games.

Yupe , as we can see many of them invading this thread .

Instead of gaming , I think I dislike humanity nature more so than ever . Nowadays everything is focused on negativity , because well yeah they generate more clicks and people love to see things failed .

 

[Pimpollo818]

I don't remember who said it but some good mantras to live by
"if you're bored, that's your fault" general idea being that everyday is a new day where someone in the world is discovering shit like Hollow Knight, Tom Waits, Pavement, Punch Drunk Love etc

 

[BlackCharlieBrown]

I've been playing Indie games lately, and my time has increased considerably.

Humanity was a great playthrough, and The Talos Principle continues to scratch my puzzle itch.

Gaming will never die, but there's nothing wrong with taking a step back if someone isn't feeling it. I stopped for nearly one decade.

 

[majorgamer10]

2023 is the year of sequels.

 

[BbMajor7th]

The industry has become desperately standardised and templated. IP dominates and revivalism has replaced innovation. What we get are remakes, sequels and new IPs that feel like something we played before.

More of the industry has been consolidated under massive corporate umbrellas and PR-washed into sterility. Development is dominated by two major cultures (Japan and the US) to the degree that developers elsewhere in the world constantly attempt to ape them culturally (Remedy, DON'TNOD, Guerrilla) or through design (it's like Dark Souls, BotW, etc).

Meanwhile, the cost and complexity of development has spiralled to such a degree that risk has gone out the window, monetisation strategy has gone into overdrive and a publish-now-patch-later culture has become standard.

Last of all, gaming is shifting towards disposability, with service games constantly churning out and sunsetting content, never to be seen again, with more and more publishers looking to join the fray. AI is set to supercharge this in the coming years.

Hobby is not dying, but it's not in a healthy or sustainable place.

 

[zeldaring]

On the one hand I think modern gaming is great, there's consistently more releases I'm interested in than the time I actually have to play games and I think many people fall too easily to nostalgia, selectively remembering only the good parts while hyper focusing on the negatives today. If you can't find a few games you like this year then maybe you just don't like games anymore.

On the other hand I think it's important to remember that gaming is a fairly new type of media that has had a fast evolution. Unlike with movies or books or comics, people who are in their 30's basically got to experience this new type of entertainment from the early days. In our lifespan we've gone from very simple 2D games to increasingly more complex ones over various generations, then we experienced the jump to 3D and the evolution from super low poly models to exponentially more detailed and realistic ones (including the jump from SD to HD along the way).

Expecting gaming to keep going at the same pace of innovation and graphical evolution forever is unrealistic. Continuing to push the graphical barrier gets harder as hardware requirements keep raising for visuals improvements that have started to feel increasingly more subtle, making something that looks 5X as good as the OG FFVI was relatively "easy", making something that looks 5X as good as RDR2 or TLOU2 is going to be harder. Budgets have gone high enough that companies have become more risk averse just like with every other type of media. Coming up with groundbreaking never seen before ideas is harder when you need to account for 40+ years of games instead of 10, etc

On the one hand I think modern gaming is great, there's consistently more releases I'm interested in than the time I actually have to play games and I think many people fall too easily to nostalgia, selectively remembering only the good parts while hyper focusing on the negatives today. If you can't find a few games you like this year then maybe you just don't like games anymore.

On the other hand I think it's important to remember that gaming is a fairly new type of media that has had a fast evolution. Unlike with movies or books or comics, people who are in their 30's basically got to experience this new type of entertainment from the early days. In our lifespan we've gone from very simple 2D games to increasingly more complex ones over various generations, then we experienced the jump to 3D and the evolution from super low poly models to exponentially more detailed and realistic ones (including the jump from SD to HD along the way).

Expecting gaming to keep going at the same pace of innovation and graphical evolution forever is unrealistic. Continuing to push the graphical barrier gets harder as hardware requirements keep raising for visuals improvements that have started to feel increasingly more subtle, making something that looks 5X as good as the OG FFVI was relatively "easy", making something that looks 5X as good as RDR2 or TLOU2 is going to be harder. Budgets have gone high enough that companies have become more risk averse just like with every other type of media. Coming up with groundbreaking never seen before ideas is harder when you need to account for 40+ years of games instead of 10, etc.

THIS.

 

[Onironauta]

AAA gaming is dying both in terms of quality and quantity, but the indie scene is booming, for the past 5 years my GOTY has been an indie game.

Just curious, can you list these 5 GOTY indie games?

 

[GamesDontSuck]

Games are not dying. It's just the golden age was 20 years ago with ps2, xbox and gc era.

 

[CanYouFlyBobby?]

Just curious, can you list these 5 GOTY indie games?

Yes just know its based on the year I played them and not the year they were released in some cases.

2023: Toem (so far)
2022: Citizen Sleeper
2021: Sable
2020: Spirirfarer
2019: The Touryst

 

[Impotaku]

When people say games are dying and there’s nothing good to play, it’s down to them having monumentally shit taste in games. There’s more choice than ever before.

 

[Esppiral]

Let me guess you are under 30

 

[Hawking Radiation]

R* will only re-release GTA 5 on PS6

Dont be a complete moron, its been 10 years since GTA 5 came out, while there are 5 years gap between GTA 4 and GTA 5

Are you ok bro? WTF are you on about?

 

[Destruction-1002]

They kind of are though. playing them 10 years later won't have the same impact, however it's not because all other titles are SO evolved i.e. in a progressive universe where valve was still making games. half life 4 would be out and there'd be no NEED to play half life 2 theoretically...if only for story

similar to how when games were truly evolving, we didn't necessarily need to play say... streets of rage, the games our dads played, because devil may cry was immensely more technically and mechanically advanced than anything they experienced. can't really say the same today. in some ways mechanic's have devolved for accessibility. look at assassins creed vs PoP warrior within.

so my point is...being so young around that Era sucks because things got....more and more corporate since then, that was the level of groundbreaking we expected to wow us and progress the medium, if you were told that ELDEN RING was considered groundbreaking in 2022 by a time traveler visiting you in 2004 after hl2....You'd be sad.

and some aspects of that game (HL2) and others will be improved upon, but won't be as ambitious and groundbreaking for the time.

The death of Dennard Scaling is the reason why CPU/GPU progress slowed down.
In 1990s, CPU evolved more 2 years than in the last 10 years

As there was nothing to replace silicon in mid-2000s, multicore CPUs existed

If the Dennard Scaling didn't die, we would had gotten 600 GHz processors and 200 GHz graphics cards in 2017

 

[OrtizTwelve]

Current modern games rely almost entirely on spectacle and marketing hype along with schemes to facilitate monetization over actual good gameplay and quality. We’ve seen this time and time again for the last few years. This is why recently smaller independent game studios have gotten more attention — they’re actually making “good games” that are just that — good games.

 

[RAIDEN1]

Today's games are a shadow of what they used to be, these days you can't even get a decent soccer game outside of FiFA, Top Spin 4 to this day remains the best console tennis game you can get....arcade racers are next to nowhere....and LucasArts aren't producing anything like Day of the Tentacle or Full Throttle.....its all about half-baked games these days with poor performance, not everything being in there.....I think the recent release of Dead Space showed what gaming used to be all about, the complete package from the get-go...no paywall no nothing....

 

[zeldaring]

Let me guess you are under 30

I'm 39 and gaming is by far better then ever for me.

 

[64bitmodels]

Just curious, can you list these 5 GOTY indie games?

here are mine!
2023: Pizza Tower
2022: Shredder's Revenge
2021: Deltarune Chapter 2
2020: Spelunky 2
2019: Outer Wilds

 

[MAX PAYMENT]

It feels like fewer unique games come out and they all try to squeeze the audience for every microtransaction cent for as long as possible. The same big names in multi-player few years ago are the same big names now. Fortnite, destiny 2, COD, etc.