Are New Games ( Post 2003) Crappier Than 2003 and before games?

[227]

Older games like Chrono Trigger are awesome and I still love the classics, but there are plenty of awesome games released now, too. I'd actually argue that gaming is better now than it was 10-20 years ago (with the exception of multiplayer/mobile games); sure, we used to get amazing classics on a fairly regular schedule because of studios like Troika, Squaresoft (before the Enix merger), and Black Isle, but I'm sure most of us still have 2-3 studios that reliably release games tailored to our particular tastes.

Beyond that, certain gaming standards now exist, meaning the tank controls of games like Resident Evil and Jade Cocoon are a thing of the past, and even uninspired modern games can often manage "good enough" gameplay whereas the bad games for systems like the Super Nintendo, Playstation 1, and early PC were often at "rubbing sandpaper on one's eyeballs" levels of why-does-this-even-exist (see: Shaq-fu). The more mainstream games have also gotten easier as the market has become flooded with them, lowering the barrier for entry. I mean, I love a challenge as much as the next guy, but anyone capable of actually finishing Actraiser 2 without emulator save states should have their thumbs removed to make us mere mortals feel better about our place in the world. And do you even remember the last game where badly-drawn hit boxes were a problem? That used to make tons of games outright unfair to play.

Oh, and shaving wisdom is a bad idea. Not only is it beyond most existing razors' abilities, but we'd lose tourism dollars as forum Sasquatch sightings dwindle.

 

[vtmb]

Woah. No.

Witcher 1 and 2.

World of Warcraft.

Bloodlines, ( I could point you to the monster amount of articles praising the writing, but will instead point out that you didn't even quote correctly in your "bad writing" example...)

STALKER and Call of Pripyat

Fallout New Vegas

The Sims - superb at what it does

Minecraft - same

Half-Life 2 - not my favourite, but justifiably great at what it is.

Portal.

Knights of The Old Republic 2

CoD: Modern Warfare

The Walking Dead

Dark Souls

The Last of Us

I could go on and on...but these are some truly excellent games and in no way inferior to their predecessors.

Of course, given your perspective, I'm sure Cyberpunk 2077 will also fail to impress you sufficiently. It's so post 2003.

So. Back on topic, maybe?

Btw, for all that's worth, Portal kinda belongs to the offspring of avant garde first person games originated from system shock 2 which were a direct influence to half life, bioshock, minerva metastasis and most certainly recent stuff like Routine.
Dead space, deus ex and mirror's edge too. SOMA and Alien Isolation seem on their own, but Aliens 1979 and generally speaking cyberpunk were a direct influence to the ones above. Just pointing out Portal is more an addition than an innovation (the puzzles from the previous student game where like 0.1% of the work behind the first portal game). It's still one of my favourite game ever ofc.
Also yeah mid 90s- first 2000 years were like the golden age. Big reveal. It's still full of cool games around and people can make lists worth of hundreds games if they want to. I couldn't disagree more about PaG stuff about bloodlines.

also what the hell is cod doing there?

 

[PROKNIFER69]

Voted for the bottom option. To be honest, I don't think games are getting worse, there's just a lot of crap to search through before you get to the jewels. Half-Life, Deus Ex 1, Legend of Zelda (pretty much all the ones before 2003), were all great games. But, we then also got Half-Life 2, Deus Ex human revolution and the new Zelda games, and a few surprises along the way. Fallout, The Last of Us, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and I know someone is gonna be like wtf for this one, but Deadly Premonition. I guess it's all a matter of taste, but for me, games are just as great now as they always have been.

 

[Garrison72]

Games have gotten technically better but we've lost creativity and risk taking thanks to the industry aping itself. Where there were many genres or none at all, now you have a few staples that rule the market because publishers want their devs to copy what has been successful. Just peruse GOG...we simply don't get off the wall ideas like theme hospital or Dungeon Keeper anymore. But where genres have conformed, they have also gotten better in the way of game mechanics, immersion and graphics. Stuff like story telling fluctuates. Level design is one thing I might say that has gotten generally worse. Most action games, shooters and even RPGs ( Bioware) have only become more linear.

 

[Sardukhar]

Oh, and shaving wisdom is a bad idea. Not only is it beyond most existing razors' abilities, but we'd lose tourism dollars as forum Sasquatch sightings dwindle.

Best quote ever. "we'd lose tourism dollars as forum Sasquatch sightings dwindle." So true.

I think you all make a lot of very solid points, with Dragon making an oft-unappreciated one - we are in a different market than we were in the 90s and early 2000s. You'd expect more risk as the market matures, but of course as the money grows, the big companies take less risk. Indies are still out there, but now they are nearly invisible next to Bioshock, for example.

CoD: MW is there because it's a very good game - exciting, dramatic, different, ( modern warfare shooters were rare) with an invigourating multiplayer. The issue is that everything since then is a giant cash-in.

Tastes are subjective, but if you think about it for a few minutes, you should be able to define a good game as opposed to one you like. I don't like MOBAs but LoL and DOTA are well done, satisfying games that appeal to those who play them. Chrono Trigger bored me, but it, too, is superb at what it does.

VTMB also points out something we kind of missed - Portal being derivative. If games keep growing and learning from their roots, surely evolution is inevitable? Or is it?

 

[227]

It's not like we're suddenly seeing a rise in games being derivative. System Shock 2 drew from System Shock, the original System Shock drew inspiration from the Ultima Underworld games, and the Ultima Underworld games drew from even older games like the Wizardry series. We're more aware of games borrowing elements from other games than we used to be, but it's definitely nothing new.

If games keep growing and learning from their roots, surely evolution is inevitable? Or is it?

Evolution is just a theory. Personally, I subscribe to the idea of intelligent game design.

 

[wisdom000]

Then you just didn't play a large swat of games Grandpapa. The fact is in the mid-90s the mainstay of PC gaming was adventure gaming.Story and writing was THE driving force of the game.

Oh rubbish, as the bird said, you are cherry picking, sure there were some story driven games in the late 90's and early 00's, but they damn sure weren't the driving force of the industry. As I said, I don't play fantasy, so maybe in that genre, beyond final fantasy and its ilk, their might have been some gems in that mix, but by no means did that make up the majority of the games released in the era.

In fact, quite the opposite, as I have already mentioned, it was the game types with next to zero story impact that dominated the market. 3-D Fighting games (tekken, Virtua Fighter, Soul Caliber, Bushido Blade, hell even Star Wars got a fighter in the form of Ters Kasi), 3-d Action games and shooters where the story was a flimsy excuse for level design... (Tomb Raider, Goldeneye, Quake, Half life) and the racing games (Gran Turismo, Twisted Metal, Crazy Taxi).

Those were the games that dominated the market in the 90's.

And the early 00's were dominated utterly by First Person Shooters and Sandbox games.

Not counting of course nonsensical abstract family friendly games that are the actual and always dominating force.

Consider trying to pass vampire communism or big green monsters with miniguns as tragedy (points that you conveniently and --smartly I hasten to add for it cannot be defended--- avoid)... Just imagine if someone tried to introduce this subplot into a movie. You would laugh at how bad the plot is and you would walk out.

I have no idea what you are talking about with vampire communism, though it sounds like a poorly thought out throwaway line, as opposed to a driving plot point. As for green monsters being tragedy, pretty sure the Incredible Hulk would disagree with you. Why you think being a giant green monster, even with a mini-gun would prevent someone from being a tragic character escapes me. Perhaps you don'/t understand tragedy as a genre. Hell, I have seen vampire communism in film, and it wasn't that bad.

Why do we not tolerate this in movies but tolerate this in games? I don't, why should you or the rest of the market?

Have you seen movies? Do you know how many sequels Police Acedemy spawned? The Wayans Brothers are still killing comedy one shitball disguised as parody at a time. Tyler Perry has made an entire franchise out of playing a mentally handicapped old fat woman.

Good movies are rare, which is why they stand out. Good games are even more rare, which is why they stand out more, but there has never been a domination in the makret of good games. Because there is always such a glut of bad games that even if the good titles are the best sellers, or the most critically acclaimed, then all that means is a flood of crappy imitations will follow.

They are junevile and laughingly stupid plots, there's no escaping the fact.
Make no mistake: junevile and idiotic plots sell.

But it is regrettable to the extreme.

On this I agree, completely. However things are just getting worse as we slide slowly towards an idiocracy future, as evidenced by the populaity of reality shows centered around deplorable human beings with no true talent or redeeming features... Jersey Shore, Honey Boo-Boo, Duck Dynasty, A6 and pregnant, Meet The Duggars, anything with Donald Trump...). We are a society that has traded in hosting up justice, intelligence, and right and wrong in exchange for betrayal, backstabbing, and the glorification of ignorance as virtues.



However, just as we are seeing the worst television in the history of mankind taking over the airways, we are also seeing the best shows ever produced holding thier own as a beacon in that darkness. Sons Of Anarchy, Breaking Bad (which was every bit as bad morality wise as a reality show, it was just impeccably written, which makes it ok), Walking Dead, Agents Of Shield, Fargo....

It's always a trade off. The best outshines the worst in our memories, but make no mistake, the best is also always the minority.

Saying that Sleeping Dogs had a great story would be like saying Schwarzenegger's Commando had a great story. I remember Commandos' story, it serves its purpose ,but it doesn't mean it's a great story. Sleeping Dog's had a cartoon plot copy/pasted from Hong Kong B-movies. There's a huge difference between a plot that is an excuse to ass kicking ( and thus a delay to the administration of said ass kicking) and a plot that can stand on its own two feet without explosions.

Oh for fucks sake... here a hint, there is no such as an original story, there never will be. There are stories that are told well and there are stories that are told poorly, and Sleeping Dogs was a story that was told well, especially for the genre. You don't like homage and tribute, sucks to be you.... you probably didn't like Black Dynamite either.... Or Tarantino films.... which is fair, but you can't accuse them of being poorly written either just because you didn't like them.

And GTA IV man. There's so much wrong about this game it's not even funny. Roman, anyone? Why do I have to go on a date with Vivian or whatever to get a bonus? That's considered gameplay nowadays? And why should a give a shit about some old gangster that got out of prison?

I liked Roman, Vivian was a small side character, The old gangster as well, extremely minor elements to the story, and the reason you didn't like any of these characters had absolutely nothing to do with the sotry and everything to do with a innovative though poorly implemented gameplay mechanic. If they hadn't fumbled the idea by making you maintain the relationships or face never ending phonecalls no one would have ever said one word in protest.

Again, other than Roman as a character (not the maintenence of your relationship him) not a damn bit of what you complained about has to do with the story... that of an immgrant criminal coming to terms with his past and trying to find his way in a new land... with a fair bit of comedy and tragedy thrown in the mix.

You can complain you didn't care for the story, or the characters, but it was well written and the characters given depth and performed well.

Did you think Red Dead Redemption had a bad story as well?

I said it was downhill since then, it is true.It's like sports. In any eras, you will find interesting matches, but there are some eras that stand out more then others. The current era of gaming is WEAK and its only saving grace is technology.

Again, nonsense stained by the rose colored glasses of nostalgia.

Well, there you go. You haven't played the best selling RPG series (game? minus call of duty) in the last decade.

I have stated many times, that I think the typical RPG game is crap, it's not my thing, I don't enjoy them.... not sure how I can make that clearer.... I find them boring. They don't resemble an actual role playing game in the slightest beyond some mechanical similarity to me.

Chances are you don't play FPS,adventure or strategy games either because your gaming is purely about pretending to be someone else/playing a role/whatever.

Um... I don't care for FPS as a perspective, because I prefer to see what my character is doing.... but I own and have played plenty of them. You keep saying adventure games, and I don't think I know what you mean by them... I love games like Tomb Raider, Uncharted, GITS, etc... but at the end of the day they are still level based and limited by the rails... which I think is an obsolete mode of gaming.

You said "Deeper complex gameplay", but the truth it is a laughable statement. Every RPG because it relies on stats have repetitive gameplay.

Thats because so called "rpg" video games bear little to no resemblence to actual role playing games, and instead rely on mechanical mimicry... I have said it many times, sandbox games like Sleeping Dogs, GTA, RDR... much more resemble the feeling of an actual playing an actual rpg... the only thing that really comes close to combining the freedom of the tabletop with the mechanics of a game system is Fallout: 3/New Vegas... probably sky rim, though I haven't actually played it...

Here are games with DEEP and COMPLEX gameplay:
Hearts of Iron <<--- by far. By far. The most complex game of the modern era.
Europa Universalis

Um... you are confusing complicated mechanics with deep and complex stories... the games you just mentioned are basically risk in video game form... not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand... though I freely admit those games look boring as hell to me... back int he day I played a lot of Nabunaga's ambition, but it is not something I would play today unless I was ridiculously bored and there was literally nothing else to do...


Fact is the RPG has to rely on the story to move it forward, story which is sorely lacking in quality in most case.

The sad part is that a lot of game franchise outside RPGs such as
Operation Flashpoint 1
Ghost recon
Rainbow six
Elder's scrolls.
Diablo (or so I heard)

Not a fan of any of those franchises to be honest... neither woudl I hold up any of them as masters of story telling.

have all been watered down to please the casual crowd.
A crowd with:
No reflexes.
No brains.
ADD.

It explains things like

regenerating health,
Partner revives
arrows to objective

Wait.... have we switched topics mid post? I actually have zero problem with any of those things except regenerating health in a shooter... Reviving a partner means both characters are no vulnerable and defenseless and can be taken out. It also removes them fromt he fight for the the time it takes to revive them...

Arrows to the objective... well presumably your character would be pretty well briefed, so would know which direction to go... presumably they also would not have been to the location 3 thousand times before and know it like the back of their hand... so I have no problem with arrows narrowing the playing field for new or casual gamers to know where to go as opposed to the guys who have been living and breathing the game since it came out.

Youknow what really drives me crazy in a shooter.... respawning at all as the default setting. but when you turn off respawn everyone bitches and cries like little girls. So there you have it. I played Socom, where you had one life a round, if you died that was it till the next round. If you survived it was because you were smarter and more cunning than everyone else.

Do you deny that the industry have watered down games to please a casual market?

In some cases... sure... in other cases no... the only sandbox games that have been watered down is the Saints Row Series, which with game 3 suddenly began catering to fucktards. But the other frnachises have remained pretty steadfast.

And no. It's not about imagining yourself to be someone else and customizing your gear or what not.That's not gameplay. That's play pretend. Akin to playing with Barbies. Before I got on this forum, I didn't even know that people "role played" in video games except for D&D nerds on MMO servers.

Not winning yourself any arguments.... or friends... with this argument, seeing as how the origins of the game this forums is based on pretty much is DND, except with cyber.

And jsut because thats not what you do, does not mean your opinion on gameplay has any bearing to reality. Putting yourself in the characters position IS the core tenant of role playing. And just because it's not what you do does make it any less valid, or longstanding, as a form of gameplay... in fact it is most liekly the reason why the entire MMO market exists.

Do you complain about replayability when you read a novel or buy a DVD?

Um... books and movies aren't games... but if I pay 60 bucks for a movie, then it damn well better be something I am going to watch more than once...

Morrowind and GTA III were pretty much just as open as their successors.Except for graphics, how did GTA IV improve on its predecessor?

They added strip clubs. oooooooooooooooooooooooooh.

Dating. Oooooooooooooooooooooooooh.

BOWLING. OOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooh.

Um.... really.... thats your big closing argument...

Well lets see, they added NPC's with much more complexity in their actions and reactions, they added better driving physics (the gta4 a little to realistic, toned back for gta v to perfection), they added online compatability (with the entire map fully online compatable with gta v), and a bunch of little shit that you don't notice but makes a huge difference. But really, how much change are you wanting? How much improvement to a franchise must there be before you consider it a valid improvement. If it's a game you admit you don't like, then it's not ever going to be enough. Just like while I am sure your tactic games have improved, they are never not going to be boring as fuck to me, so I don't care about the improvement to those games myself. Neither opinion has squat to do with the topic at hand.

All so I can pretend to have a fake social life.

Why would I care if you do not want to spend 60$ on a game? Play pretend is not gaming.
That's irrelevant to the equation.

Um........... not only is your agument here irrelevant itself, but it has nothing to do with the argument we are having.

I am not playing this game to have a fake social life, I am playing this game to live vicariously through a character in as realistic an environemtn as I can, while still being able to do all the shit that I can't do in real life, like get in car chases, murder people, and be an action hero badass in general. Bowling, thats just a side game that is in no way relevant to the plot, or the game, but provides a nice distraction. Suddenly minigames are bad.... but weren;t you just praising the zelda series? Are glorified carny games now somehow more acceptable than bowling? Or the card mini games in final fantasy.... do they not set off your "AAAAAAAAAAAAARGH THIS IS WRONG AND STUPID" reaction for some reason?

What your argument really tells me is that this game, Cyberpunk 2077, is NOT going to be something you will enjoy, as it most definitely is based on the idea of roleplaying your character, and it most definitely will be open world.... hell these are virtually the only things that have been positively confirmed, other than the fact that it's based on one of the games that DND nerds play... which you also dislike...

And absolutely nothing, not a single word you have said, lends any credence to your position that somehow the games in the 90's were better than the games of today. Some games were really awesome back then, most sucked. Some games are really awesome today, most suck... and thats the simple truth of that matter.

 

[wisdom000]

Best quote ever. "we'd lose tourism dollars as forum Sasquatch sightings dwindle." So true.

Not sure where the idea of me being hairy came from, but please, shave me... It's been a while since I had that kind of intimate contact... shave me baby, shave me all over.... yes.... even there....

 

[Sardukhar]

Oh rubbish,

OHMYCHRISTINGGOD that was a wall of text. And I had to read nearly the whole thing to make sure you didn't lose your shit or something. I pity Poet, who is going to try to respond to all that.

Anyway.

GUYS. Let us keep it friendly. Telling the other person what they say is nonsense or rubbish is a leeetle unfriendly. Unless I'm doing it, of course. Hel-lo, Mod. God, I love this power. Thanks, Marcin!

Yeah, friendly. Not so much with someone you know well enough that they won't care, like me or Wisdom or Redge or 227, but unless you're really, REALLY sure they won't take offense, let's avoid those trigger words and phrases that make people think you've just accused them of being an idiot because they disagree with you. Or whatever.

Other than that, great argument! And it's made me think, again, "why DON'T we have more games like Deus Ex 1, System Shock 2, Bloodlines, Planescape" etc. Is it cost of writing?

 

[Garrison72]

@Wisdom. You are omitting classic CRPGs that helped define much of what we like today: Baldur's Gate, Deus Ex, Fallout, Might and Magic, Morrowind, etc. Believe me, they are seminal titles that influenced today's RPGs enormously.

 

[wisdom000]

@Wisdom. You are omitting classic CRPGs that helped define much of what we like today: Baldur's Gate, Deus Ex, Fallout, Might and Magic, Morrowind, etc. Believe me, they are seminal titles that influenced today's RPGs enormously.

I didn't omit them, I didn't mention them necessarily, but heck, I even played a few... Deus Ex was fun, and had pretty good writing, same for Baldurs gate.... well it was fun, kind of reminded me of Gauntlet, the writing was...... I forget, was there supposed to be a story that went along with that?

However, none of those games were the driving force of the market, even collectively. They were maybe the driving force of the vgrpg market, which is pretty niche, but the video game market itself is a much larger animal.

And as I have said before, people don't tend to play games just for the story, if the game isn't fun to begin with then no one will care about the story... and if the game is awesome to play, then even the flimsiest premise will do.... it's great when we can get a great game and a great story, but the gameplay pretty much has to come first for it to be profitable, otherwise the designer should just write a book or direct a movie and save a whole lot of people the headache.

 

[Sardukhar]

I
However, none of those games were the driving force of the market, even collectively. They were maybe the driving force of the vgrpg market, which is pretty niche, but the video game market itself is a much larger animal.

Final Fantasy VIII for PS, an RPG more or less, sold 8 million copies in 1998. That's pretty driving.

Baldur's Gate sold 2 million copies, just on PC. Pretty significant and, yes, market-driving. For comparison, Infamous didn't sell 2 million copies.

Resident Evil, PS, sold 9 million copies. 1996. Story was vital to that game, providing the basis for the rest.

Splinter Cell, on Xbox, only sold 3 million. If Baldur's Gate sold 2 million copies, and SC sold 3 million, I'd say BG was pretty powerful.

Last of Us sold 6 million copies - absolutely story driven. Gameplay was meh.

And then there is World of Warcraft. It succeeds where everything else fails in large part because of the writing. WoW players follow the adventures of their favourite characters like Malfurion, Garrosh and Sylvanas intently. you haven't lived until you've spent a few hours listening to them argue.

Gameplay does not, necessarily come first. Not at all. Gameplay is the plate upon which you are served the story, for any story-bound game.

Otherwise, go play chess, right?

 

[dragonbird]

OK. Enough. I've removed two posts that went well outside forum rules, if you want to discuss this topic, do so without personal attacks.

 

[Sardukhar]

WHAT? I missed the excitement? Curse you, turkey dinner! Curse youuuuuuuuu!

it was delicious, though. Kel put garlic under the turkey skin and we made quinoa stuffing with bacon, sauteed onion, garlic. Then we layered bacon across the top. Lastly, I basted it every 30 minutes, and then for the last hour, cut holes in the bird and poured bastings inside it. Lastly, I broiled the Pope's nose.

So delicious.

Sooo...anyone have anything to say on the subject that might elicit thought? Oooh! I have a thought, chess-related: gameplay complexity. Chess is pretty simple, with many, many permutations. Blizzard shoots for easy to learn, tough to master.

Would you say, in general, that games today such as Starcraft 2 or, hmm, League of Legends, build on the complexity of their predecessors or have we rather plateaued somewhat?

 

[227]

I thought that SARSduchess just called D-bird "turkey dinner." That was awesome until he started talking about actual turkey.

On the subject of complexity:

A lot of the classics were streamlined and dumbed-down versions of what came before. Hell, Chrono Trigger only let you equip four things onto your character, and learning skills (techs) was automatic because you gained tech points with experience. Point is, back then, streamlining was often welcomed as "just the good parts" and ended up being hugely successful. Now it evokes seal-clubbing corporations with a vested interest in destroying everything game enthusiasts love. All that aside, there will probably always be complex games (the Dominions series, anyone?) in addition to the more mainstream games that aim for that "easy to learn, difficult to master" nook, and it never hurts to have an option between the two. Mainstream games as a whole seem to have become markedly less complex over the years, though, presumably for accessibility reasons.

 

[vtmb]

MW wasn't a good game sardukhar. For reasons i posted around and cant quote because touchscreen suck. Its one of those games that spawned clones crapping over tactics.

Regarding complexity, elegant complexity is a result of simple rules (mechanics) players are meant to master. The small bit to preconstructed design is what players are called to learn and the innovation to the whole construct.

Just to point out how things are, it doesnt have anything to do with huge rule books and retarded simulation shallow complexity

 

[vtmb]

It's not like we're suddenly seeing a rise in games being derivative. System Shock 2 drew from System Shock, the original System Shock drew inspiration from the Ultima Underworld games, and the Ultima Underworld games drew from even older games like the Wizardry series. We're more aware of games borrowing elements from other games than we used to be, but it's definitely nothing new.




Evolution is just a theory. Personally, I subscribe to the idea of intelligent game design.

Understand that considering single stuff makes everything unoriginal while ss2 aimed for a narrative continuity only half life got perfect. Thief storytelling is still one of the smartest ones too

 

[Sardukhar]

MW wasn't a good game sardukhar. For reasons i posted around and cant quote because touchscreen suck. Its one of those games that spawned clones crapping over tactics.

I think it was. Here's a quote from Gamesradar that sums it up nicely, but there is a reason it spawned all those clones.

"Say what you like about the current state of the Call of Duty series. However you feel about gaming’s most populist punch bag, the entry that arguably set it on its mainstream-baiting trajectory is still an absolute masterpiece. A masterclass in pacing, scripting, and brutally affecting in-game storytelling, if its greatest moments have become diluted through years of attempted emulation that’s only because of their shocking, exhilarating, and damnably intelligent ability to put hearts in mouths and pulse rates off the scale.

CoD4 is one of the smartest, ballsiest games about war ever made, thinking nothing of casually presenting you with the dirty, unheroic nature of the beast at every turn. Whether inflicted by the enemy or friendlies, it’s never afraid to force you to confront the demands or consequences of the situation, right through to its teeth-rattling climax. It might not be the longest of games, but few other shooters will leave you so shell-shocked, worn-out or elated, or with such a massive man-crush on an abrasive moustachioed Englishman. And we hear the multiplayer isn’t bad either… "

 

[vtmb]

Which doesnt explain cods design.Its pr level crap sard

because health regen is a fix to the removal of medkits things look bad in the immediate but not on the long term. Since the level design of shooters which lack pick ups can only aim to tactical paths you get short hps countered with fast regeneration which craps on the meaning of said paths and calls for chaotic gameplay. You can bomb rush as long as you get to the cover and that.s what makes of MW the game it is: bomb rush segments and enemy waves parts. The best tactic is running past them and enemies wont spawn anymore.

 

[Hoplite_22]

Ahhh nostalgia, it's not what it used to be.

Have things always progressed as I'd like in games? No.

Does that mean games haven't generally gotten better when they are good? No.

They are better and yes the top end of the market is dominated by bloated rubbish that relies on mass market recognition to sell but that is what allows for some of the really great games to come through.