What? That's a wrong assumption on your part. No, you are characterizing my experiences with video games as a kid arbitrarily to support your own argument, which is--I think--just a fallacy: "the world's always been the same, it's you what's changed and you are just referencing fond but ultimately biased memories". I expected more from video games when I was a little kid, that's the whole point of my comment, so I didn't glorify them, even as a kid, to the point of having my judgement significantly clouded.
Same thing when people criticise heavy smartphone usage, for instance: "well, people watched more TV then; it's always been the same. You miss being young". You couldn't take your TV virtually everywhere, so the extent to which people distracted themselves and neglected their lives was less.
>by pretty much any standard, these newer games were better than the ones that came before them.
Watch this (or almost any other video from crowbcat): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWVtZJo-HqI. This is the tendency in video games: less resources, less elaboration; higher prices for the whole game (DLCs, Season Pass, etc.). As with anything, it's "reduce the costs, increase the benefits", as well as "make it more addictive", even at the expense of the product's quality.
I think this video largely supports the point. As someone who's played very little GTA, I don't understand what the video's trying to communicate - the only big difference I'm seeing is the higher resolution in GTA V clips.
> I don't understand what the video's trying to communicate - the only big difference I'm seeing is the higher resolution in GTA V clips.
I'm afraid it's as clear as day, but anyhow, you have it on the video's description: "Physics, gunfight, AI, melee combat, controls, interiors, multiplayer freedom". In GTA IV, almost everything looks more elaborate and polished, and it came out five years before the franchise's next instance.
I'm similarly unable to understand how this video shows Gears 5 isn't "brutal, grounded and satisfying".
It really seems like the same phenomenon I experienced with the latest first generation Pokemon remake. It has more resources, immersion, and engagement than the original releases in 1996 by any objective standard - but it feels less engaging, in some nonspecific way I've never been able to communicate to anyone didn't play the originals.
What? That's a wrong assumption on your part. No, you are characterizing my experiences with video games as a kid arbitrarily to support your own argument, which is--I think--just a fallacy: "the world's always been the same, it's you what's changed and you are just referencing fond but ultimately biased memories". I expected more from video games when I was a little kid, that's the whole point of my comment, so I didn't glorify them, even as a kid, to the point of having my judgement significantly clouded.
Same thing when people criticise heavy smartphone usage, for instance: "well, people watched more TV then; it's always been the same. You miss being young". You couldn't take your TV virtually everywhere, so the extent to which people distracted themselves and neglected their lives was less.
>by pretty much any standard, these newer games were better than the ones that came before them.
Watch this (or almost any other video from crowbcat): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWVtZJo-HqI. This is the tendency in video games: less resources, less elaboration; higher prices for the whole game (DLCs, Season Pass, etc.). As with anything, it's "reduce the costs, increase the benefits", as well as "make it more addictive", even at the expense of the product's quality.