Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why old games never die, but new ones do

pleromanonx86.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 335 posts

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#261

Post by fullshark »

HK-NC wrote: post #133
overgard wrote: post #88

I think another reason might just be: simplicity. A lot of these older games are much easier to pick up and grok. I remember I used to play a ton of Battlefield 1942 back in the day (like, in a competitive clan, going to LAN parties, that kind of thing). I tried picking up Battlefield V but I just gave up because it felt like there was just too much going on. It probably has a host of other great things, but my main…

My issue wit it is the "too much" is just fluff. I'm not overwhelmed because I'm oit of my depth, in that case I'd be excited to sink my teeth into a new system, instead it's pointless or borderline offensive fluff in my face.

IDK so many strategy games now involve figuring out what stats to min-max and then even if you figure it out there's gonna be an update that rebalances things anyway so what's the point.

Maybe I'm just older, but none of this seems fun.

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#262

Post by CivBase »

sumeno wrote: post #253

Just the opening paragraph of this article is pure hogwash > It’s well known that video games today are disposable pieces of slop. There are absolutely incredible games still being made across genres. BG3, Hades, Clair Obscur, Celeste, the Horizon series, Balatro, Void Stranger, Elden Ring, these are all examples of all time great games in their respective genres and they all came out in the last 10 years. > Modern m…

WoW and FFXIV would fall into the author's "live service" category.

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#263

Post by johnisgood »

leecommamichael wrote: post #242
adwf wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, just adding info for context: Fortnite: July 25, 2017 (Battle Royale mode launched September 26, 2017) Apex Legends: February 4, 2019 Valorant: June 2, 2020 Overwatch: May 24, 2016 Call of Duty: 2003, Annual release League of Legends: October 27, 2009 Dota 2: July 9, 2013 Roblox: 2006 (initially as DynaBlocks, rebranded to Roblox the same year) Blame Claude 4 if any date i…

I will not blame an LLM, I will blame your laziness for repeating a message you didn't verify.

I know, right?! People misuse a valuable tool and blame the tool for it.

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#264

Post by bombcar »

jfengel wrote: post #251
somenameforme wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterstrike 1, released 25 years ago, averages around 10,000 players 'online' at any given moment, pretty much exclusively for team based multiplayer [1]. That makes it more popular (by active player count) than e.g. Hogwart's Legacy. Most modern games not only really fail to bring anything new to the table, but often feel like the overall gameplay is general decline. For instance the gunplay in Counterstrike still…

Isn't Hogwarts Legacy famously just not a good game? On top of which, the author of the IP has increasingly aggravated a significant segment of their fan base.

It was extremely popular - for about as long as it took to beat the story. It has no multiplayer.

It’s entirely unfair to expect it to continue to pull numbers similar to a dedicated multiplayer game.

Very few single-player story games have much replayability, though they do exist (usually rogue likes or heavily moddable).

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#265

Post by 383toast »

fullshark wrote: post #261
HK-NC wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issue wit it is the "too much" is just fluff. I'm not overwhelmed because I'm oit of my depth, in that case I'd be excited to sink my teeth into a new system, instead it's pointless or borderline offensive fluff in my face.

IDK so many strategy games now involve figuring out what stats to min-max and then even if you figure it out there's gonna be an update that rebalances things anyway so what's the point. Maybe I'm just older, but none of this seems fun.

What strategy games don't involve min-maxing to play competitively?

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#266

Post by bombcar »

sitzkrieg wrote: post #235
ThatMedicIsASpy wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very old games are a problem for windows and have a significant higher chance of running out of the box with proton on linux

can you provide an example?

I think he means that trying to run some early win16 games will fail on windows, but run fine in emulation/wine, etc.

But of course, you can run dosbox on windows, too.

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#267

Post by sumeno »

CivBase wrote: post #262
sumeno wrote: post #253

Just the opening paragraph of this article is pure hogwash > It’s well known that video games today are disposable pieces of slop. There are absolutely incredible games still being made across genres. BG3, Hades, Clair Obscur, Celeste, the Horizon series, Balatro, Void Stranger, Elden Ring, these are all examples of all time great games in their respective genres and they all came out in the last 10 years. > Modern m…

WoW and FFXIV would fall into the author's "live service" category.

Neither of those are driven by free updates and paid for with microtransactions

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#268

Post by bombcar »

sumeno wrote: post #253

Just the opening paragraph of this article is pure hogwash > It’s well known that video games today are disposable pieces of slop. There are absolutely incredible games still being made across genres. BG3, Hades, Clair Obscur, Celeste, the Horizon series, Balatro, Void Stranger, Elden Ring, these are all examples of all time great games in their respective genres and they all came out in the last 10 years. > Modern m…

Balatro is a perfect example of a game that could easily have been made in the 90s, perhaps even the 80s, and yet it’s brand new and really has no similar competitors from that era.

There’s still new things to build.

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#269

Post by bombcar »

squigz wrote: post #176
gmerc wrote: post #162

Old games being available has stopped enshittification and value extraction from VC and PE. The cost of new games has reached a point where that kind of capital is needed but the value extraction mechanisms these funding methods require don’t work when there’s competition from old games that allocate more value to the user. The hardware upgrade train stopped about 2019 too because more expensive hardware scarcely mak…

> MS is trying to fuck around with game pass but it’s doomed with Steam. No it's not. Game Pass is very popular even with people like me who are massive fans of Steam. And it's been pretty successful for quite a few years now, so not sure what you mean by "trying to"

Game Pass is for those willing to admit that an all-you-can-play buffet is fine enough for most people.

Steam is for collectors who want to pretend that someday they’ll play their backlog.

At least digital hoarding is easier for the kids to throw away.

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#270

Post by dartharva »

leecommamichael wrote: post #245
dartharva wrote: post #96

Author conveniently ignores the thousands of good indie games in the market currently and just dismisses the entire current generation as "disposable pieces of slop". Only someone willingly spoiling their taste in games will make such a ludicrous claim. Many of today's games are in fact a massive upgrade over past titles; it's just that competition and discoverability is too tough and they don't get enough marketing…

You conveniently ignored all but the first sentence, didn't you? I can respect that, but it is mostly an article about multiplayer games.

> it is mostly an article about multiplayer games

Changes nothing about what I said. Plenty of very good multiplayer games out there.

Post reply on HN