did you know that pancakes and waffles are both made with batter?
No, they aren't. A ton can change between generations, particularly quality of life stuff, that can make what was at the time a well recieved game not feel great to play today.
I have skipped every "best of decade" list. Soon they'll start listing the same games in their "best of gen" lists. I salute any site/person that hasn't participated in this stupid phenomenon.
Waffles. It's always wafflesWhy not both? we also do have list of "best games of all time, etc.."
But which ones are better in the last decade?
I was talking a bit more generally, I was saying gaming as that's the topic but I do generally believe that for everything.
Gaming I think is affected a bit more due to the fact gaming as a medium is still rapidly evolving. The truth is the technical capabilities of what was available in 2010 is different than what we have near the end of 2019. And there's still much exploration and experimenting with what the medium can do design wise, building off of what's come before in transformative ways. That doesn't mean all new games are better or anything like that, not what I am trying to claim. Limitation can breed creativity and there's so many factors at play to a game's quality, but the factors of technology available and lessons learned from what came before is still going at a faster pace in the field.
While I understand it's a hot topic and people will push these list for clicks and discussion as it's on the mind right now as we wrap up the decade, I generally do think that's just another flavor of the month discussion than an actual more critical or deeper analysis.
good games are good no matter what console they were released on
a game that becomes less good after its console generation was never good to begin with
The value which I can think of is for people in the future who want to go back and look for works of a certain type. For example, if right now I wanted to go watch films from the 1980s, the films that will most likely interest me are films decided by general reception and word of mouth to be worth checking out. If I get a deeper interest and dive deeper than the "cream of the crop", then that's great too, but I think analyzing a decade has the value for people of the future interested in checking out works from a decade for one reason or another to have on-hand what was the "cream of the crop" of the decade in question.Honestly, if the question is "is there any value in creating lists ever?" I'm not going to go to bat for the process regardless of what the parameters are. Generally speaking if I were to say they have any value at all I think it's more just in what it can tell you about the author of the list more than the pursuit of trying to craft any sort of Definitive Video Game Canon or whatever. I think things like recency bias are certainly a thing, sure. But the threads overall premise of the PS3/360 generation versus the PS4/XB1 generation creating games that are too different to compare is just bizarre to me.
The value which I can think of is for people in the future who want to go back and look for works of a certain type. For example, if right now I wanted to go watch films from the 1980s, the films that will most likely interest me are films decided by general reception and word of mouth to be worth checking out. If I get a deeper interest and dive deeper than the "cream of the crop", then that's great too, but I think analyzing a decade has the value for people of the future interested in checking out works from a decade for one reason or another to have on-hand what was the "cream of the crop" of the decade in question.
I don't actually believe this is true even a little bit. What I tend to find with video games is later refinements to certain aspects of games can retroactively make certain things feel worse. That does not mean they were bad when they released, just reiterations and transformations on those core ideas became standard later which can make some of the older works harder to go back to with a modern lens.good games are good no matter what console they were released on
a game that becomes less good after its console generation was never good to begin with
I agree, but it doesn't mean that a game company will always make as good games.No, they aren't. A ton can change between generations, particularly quality of life stuff, that can make what was at the time a well recieved game not feel great to play today.
Games can also age really well despite time having passed.Actually...
Have you heard the phrase "this game has aged badly"? We are constantly doing this where amazing games become bad because... time has passed
I was with you until you started talking about witcher 3. Like my mind can't even start to comprehend your opinion about it. And I can guarantee you 100% more people will remember w3 than 1&2. W3 is what put them on the map, w3 is the game that's appearing GotG list. W3 is the game that still holds the most accolades. Like come on.I agree, but it doesn't mean that a game company will always make as good games.
Look at Bioware for example. Last gen, they released the Mass Effect trilogy, probably the best RPG trilogy ever released. This generation, they released Dragon Age Inquisition and Anthem. I don't think anyone would say that Hope are has released better games this generation than the last one.
Now, look at Obsidian. Last generation, they released Alpha Protocol, Fallout New Vegas and South Park: The Stick of the Truth. But in the beginning of this generation, they can't find any contract with a major publisher and were near to close. They have released Armored Warfare (I don't think anyone care about this game), Pillars of Eternity I & II and Tyranny. The last three games are great, but they just didn't have enough money to make them even better. The first Pillars of Eternity, for example, feels incomplete and still has a lot of bugs. Then, they finally released The Outer Worlds (I haven't played it yet).
Finally, let's talk about CD Projekt. Last generation, they have released two amazing games, two RPG that RPG fans will remember for decades, two games which remain really great now, The Witcher and The Witcher 2. Then, they only make one mistake: they decided that The Witcher 3 should have "100 hours of original content." Then, they have been forced to forget almost every choice made by the player in the first two games, they have been forced to create a boring, linear experience where the played only have a small impact into the world in order to reach this "100 hours of original content" goal. The Witcher 3 isn't a bad game, it has a lot of qualities, but it's the worst Witcher game. CD Projekt also released Gwent and its single player, Thronebreak, two great games, but not as good as The Witcher and The Witcher 2.
So, even if I also think that video games are better now than in the past, it doesn't mean that every studio release better games now than in the past. For different reasons, Obsidian, Bioware and CD Projekt, the three kings of RPG, has released worst games this generation than the previous one.
And I don't even talk about dead IP/studio, like Bioshock.
Goldeneye was already weak shit compared to Doom and Quake the moment it came out (though it's still neat in its own right). That game didn't age poorly; it was on release what it is now.
Shadow of the Colossus would still be an engaging game with a well presented minimal story. Bad framerate hasn't exactly gone away in console games, one of the best PS4 exclusives has bad framerate (Bloodborne)My point is, back when it came out, it was considered one of the greatest games of all time. It probably wasn't deserving of that, but back then there was no real competition on consoles.
Obviously it feels dated now, but back then, that was the best console FPS you could get.
As another example, Shadow of the Colossus. It had universal acclaim, but go back and play it at 10fps on the PS2. You can't say it's a bad game, but it's aged horribly.
The framerate was considered terrible back when it was new though. Had it not been such a great game we might not have been so persevering with its performance issues. The same is often said about The Last Guardian this generation.As another example, Shadow of the Colossus. It had universal acclaim, but go back and play it at 10fps on the PS2. You can't say it's a bad game, but it's aged horribly.
Because no one has played The Witcher 1 or 2 :D. But I know it is an unconventional opinion, that's why it was the last example I gave.I was with you until you started talking about witcher 3. Like my mind can't even start to comprehend your opinion about it. And I can guarantee you 100% more people will remember w3 than 1&2. W3 is what put them on the map, w3 is the game that's appearing GotG list. W3 is the game that still holds the most accolades. Like come on.
I played it multiple times . And I dare to say W2 is the weakest witcher game all things considered, despite being a solid game .Because no one has played The Witcher 1 or 2 :D. But I know it is an unconventional opinion, that's why it was the last example I gave.
If a game doesn't age well, then it's not a great game to put in the best of a decade list.No, they aren't. A ton can change between generations, particularly quality of life stuff, that can make what was at the time a well recieved game not feel great to play today.
Shadow of the Colossus got plenty of points docked by multiple outlets specifically because of its performance. .My point is, back when it came out, it was considered one of the greatest games of all time. It probably wasn't deserving of that, but back then there was no real competition on consoles.
Obviously it feels dated now, but back then, that was the best console FPS you could get.
As another example, Shadow of the Colossus. It had universal acclaim, but go back and play it at 10fps on the PS2. You can't say it's a bad game, but it's aged horribly.
I was a little bit disappointed by The Witcher 2, because even if it was a really great, it feels to short. Then, years later, I played The Witcher 3 and it shows me how wonderful The Witcher 2 was.I played it multiple times . And I dare to say W2 is the weakest witcher game all things considered, despite being a solid game .
I mean Witcher games were never designed or marketed as games that will carry save data to the next one . CDPR did that as a bonus thing for people who stuck with these games . They were always pitched as standalone games with Geralt being the protagonistI was a little bit disappointed by The Witcher 2, because even if it was a really great, it feels to short. Then, years later, I played The Witcher 3 and it shows me how wonderful The Witcher 2 was.
The funny thing is that I played Mass Effect 3 (you know, the game that everyone hates) after The Witcher 3 (the game that everyone loves). Mass Effect 3 is exactly how The Witcher 3 should have been, in my opinion. Mass Effect 3 respects all your choice (except one), which can led to the death of one of your previous companion. In The Witcher 3, all your choices are ignored, except one. There is also a lot of characters who has completely disappeared, even if it doesn't make any sense.
The Witcher 3 is a great stand alone game, even if I think it is too long and has an uninteresting main story. But as the last chapter of a trilogy, I think it was worst than Mass Effect 3 or than Dragon Age Inquisition.
Chrono Trigger still feels great to play.No, they aren't. A ton can change between generations, particularly quality of life stuff, that can make what was at the time a well recieved game not feel great to play today.
I don't know. I think there is a good connection between 1 and 2. You see some characters of the previous game and it affects the story (for example, if Radovid has married Adda in the first game, it doesn't say it would marry Anaïs in the second one).I mean Witcher games were never designed or marketed as games that will carry save data to the next one . CDPR did that as a bonus thing for people who stuck with these games . They were always pitched as standalone games with Geralt being the protagonist