The last 12 months or so have seen a variety of new videogames being launched in a variety of consoles and computers. Last August 9, 2016 saw the release of No Man's Sky. Other highly anticipated titles included Final Fantasy 15 (November 29, 2016) and Mass Effect Andromeda (March 21, 2017).
Upon No Man's Sky launch, excitement soon became deep disappointment. The initial product felt repetitive and aimless just a very few hours in. Ever since, Hello Games (the studio that developed the game) has been launching a series of updates that considerably improve the game, and it seems there is still more to come. The game really has improved since launch. Yet, to this day, many people keep flaming the game to death. Here is a news flash: If the game was just a cash grab like many accuse it to be, they would not be providing the various updates, and the developers would have vanished instead. The more likely scenario is that they ran into technical difficulties as the deadline approached. Believe me, this happens, and with today's ambitious goals, all the more.
Final Fantasy 15 was received with very mixed reviews, despite being one of the coolest things to happen to the series in the last few years. People say the game is too open world, even though a previous title, Final Fantasy 13, was criticized for being totally lineal. Others keep saying that the series has strayed off from its origins, away from turn based combat, becoming too much scifi, and a large etcetera. And of course, those who claim that nothing will be as good as Final Fantasy 7 or whichever happens to be their favorite.
Mass Effect Andromeda also suffered similar criticism, the main ones being that it did not tie into the last title, Mass Effect 3, or that it has become too politically incorrect with all this colonization underlying theme. Some say it has plenty of procedurally generated content, or that its characters don't feel epic.
All of the above leads to the following question: Are older videogames better, or is it just nostalgia?
The truth is, there is probably a bit of both. The game industry has accustomed most players to fairly lineal experiences, with a very occasional Skyrim, and suddenly open worlds are becoming more common, grander, bigger, and gamers feel that developers are not focusing enough on the main characters or plot. The fact that most games are getting day one patches, and many subsequent ones, also seem to provide a negative view of the newer games. But the truth is, gaming technology has advanced exponentially in the last few years, with 3D realistic sets, more things happening all at once, more multimedia, multiplayer, and so on. It is no longer just creating a platformer or RPG (role playing game) you can fit into a Nintendo cartridge, releasing it, and letting it go. This is no longer the 8 bit era. Or the 16 bit era. Today's videogames are far more complex, and there is a huge chance that bugs may slip by even the most dedicated group of beta testers. For example, how do you fully beta test something like No Man's Sky prior to release? Thankfully in today's world it is possible to fix things via DLCs. You don't have to be stuck with a glitchy game anymore. Back in the era of 8 bit consoles I got a fair share of games with bugs, and that was it.
Personally I think games are getting more interesting as technology advances. Game developers are treading into new grounds. They make mistakes, and they try to fix them. Criticism is good, but inflamatory reviews are not; They could discourage developers from trying new stuff. Sorry folks, I don't need to play another 300 Super Mario / Sonic The Hedgehog / Megaman games. However good they are, its good to try new things also.
Agree? Disagree? Please vote and comment.