1376
Then vs Now (startrek.website)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 87 points 6 months ago

Games back then : created by 1 to 4 people with autism because they wanted to have fun on a computer

Games now : driven by dickheads that just left business school at the whims of billionaire conglomoration funds.

[-] mossy_@lemmy.world 29 points 6 months ago

I miss when games used to be good. Anyone 'member Vampire Survivors, Lethal Company, Bug Fables? Developers these days just can't compare.

[-] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

now that's survivor bias

EDIT : here's the fun thing, Lethal company would have been a mod back in the day

[-] Acters@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Tbf, games were easier to create using in-game functions and logic that was created for another game. Modding a whole rework was easier than making the entire game from scratch. Undeniably lethal company is similar in look and feel but it has better game play than some mods.

[-] bob_lemon@feddit.de 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Exactly, creating a mod for half-life or similar titles was simply the easiest way to get a decent working 3d fps engine without coding it yourself.

[-] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

the tools these days make it basically the same to work a mod or an inde game.

[-] mossy_@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Is your point that developers today aren't as good/benevolent/whatever as devs back in the day? I'm saying (sarcastically, I suppose) that the same type of developers exist today. What does survivor's bias have to do with it? Is my point moot because GMOD exists?

[-] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

Your point is moot because there is an unending hose of indie games being created and knowing that 2 gems exist doesn't mean the rest of the cottage industry measures up to the things being achieved earlier, and nor does said indie scene have a similar rate of success as the old industry back then.

[-] mossy_@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

What are you, a shareholder? Why does the 'rate of success' matter? I didn't list three games because there were only two gems.

It's like being at the library and saying "fantasy authors will never compete with what JK Rowling was writing, just look at how many books are here!"

[-] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

it's survivor bias because having one or two good games in a tidal wave of indie bug riddled, knockoff messes isn't exactly the same thing as the innovations from back in the day. Some asshole's Amnesia knockoff or twin stick shooter being good is hardly surprinsing when 5000 of them come out daily.

this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
1376 points (94.9% liked)

Gaming

2718 readers
49 users here now

!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.

Our Rules:

1. Keep it civil.


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.


2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.


I should not need to explain this one.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.


Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS