Are new games really worth it, or can we get by on retro titles? - Virgin Microtransactions Versus The Chad Retro Finished Product.

[dreamworks face]

I'm sick of loot shooters, MOBA games, and Battle Royale.

So essentially I'm bored with all modern games.

 

[Answer]

When it comes to new games I usually wait up to a year or two (maybe three) before buying them because they will usually have had a couple of price drops plus most if not all of the DLC has been released and most bugs have been patched. If you're lucky you might even get the special edition complete with DLC at a discounted price.

Unfortunately this almost never applies to first party Nintendo games. BOTW, Odyssey, and Ultimate will probably stay at $60 until the end of time.

 

[SJ 485]

To be perfectly honest--with incredibly few exceptions--I won't even touch a new game until it's already been out for several months

I just don't understand the point in needing to play the latest bullshit as it comes out. I bought Deus Ex: Mankind Divided in a bundle a while ago for £5.95 along with the other games and I've spent more time playing Invisible War of all things so far. I have a million other things to do rather than shell out $60 for the latest AAA disappointment. I don't honestly think I've paid more than maybe $20 for a video game in the last 5 years. The only thing that stands a chance to break this for me is when The Talos Principle 2 comes out maybe.

 

[UE 558]

Depends on the game.

Some are good, some are garbage. Don't buy garbage if you don't want to play garbage. That's why I chose not to buy Anthem, Crackdown 3, Jump Force, etc, I kinda figured they'd all be buggy, DLC infested elephant shit. Meanwhile, REm2ke, Sekiro, DMC5, and Doom Eternal actually have my interest piqued. Just vote with your wallet and don't buy garbage.

Also, if you want to save money on newer games, I'd recommend CheapAssGamer, I wouldn't own Yakuzas Kiwami and Zero, Monster Hunter World, or Alien Isolation without it

P.S.: Read up on the info of a game in advance. For example, I made CERTAIN not to get RDR2 until I knew that it was on two discs and that they didn't just put half of the game on a disc and the other half onto a 50+GB patch. You're less likely to buy garbage if you know it's unlikely to be garbage in advance. This kinda irked me from buying Spyro HD, the game itself played amazingly on my pal's Xbone, but the fact that 1/2 of of the game is a 20GB patch bugged me. Say what you will about the 90GB RDR2 took up, but even if I was playing it without any form of internet access whatsoever, both discs would still install

 

[sasazuka]

There are still new games that are relatively quick and painless installs. I don't recall having to download any mandatory patches just to be able to play Tales of Berseria, for example. There is some minor paid DLC for that game but it's basically just costumes. I forget how much of the PS4 hard drive that game takes up but I don't think it's much more than 15 GB at maximum. But it's only a single-player JRPG with an aging graphics engine and not a triple-A game that's pushing the limits of the hardware, maybe that's why I was able to get it up and running relatively easily.

On the other hand, even if I wasn't going to wait a year or two for Red Dead Redemption 2 to hit the discount game racks at Walmart, assuming that discount game racks will even exist in a couple of years, the game requiring most of my remaining PS4 hard drive space is a huge disincentive against me ever purchasing it unless I also get an external drive to store it on.

For the most part, I'm fine with sixth-generation graphics, as in the Dreamcast, Playstation 2, original XBox, and GameCube, but I only play games on small screens (one 26" and one 19" television)... obviously, if someone is playing on a 50-plus inch 4K screen, older graphics might not look as good. I'd say I'd be fine playing only retro games for the rest of my life, but there are some games like Rally racing games where dynamic environments featuring snow and mud add a lot to the experience. Some later 7th generation Rally games were beginning to get there with the dynamic environments but the 8th gen Rally games definitely look a lot more realistic in that department and I can only imagine the 9th generation games will look even better.

The ultimate question as to whether I bother with 9th generation consoles will be whether I can pay for a game once and then continue to play it for as long as I like, whether or not the online servers shut down, or will I have to continue paying after I buy the game and then lose access to it once the servers are gone? If I can't "own" a game, I'm not going to spend money on it, basically.

 

[Red Hood]

Older games are usually complete, and some even have tools for users to create new levels. Aren't there still people creating new Doom .wads and Marathon campaigns?

And certainly if you want certain experiences: C&C style strategy games, good Star Wars titles, or politically incorrect humor...you gotta go retro.

 

[shartshooter]

Games made before things were figured out and codified into convention benefit from an originality unique to the era. Not everything was good but games would often be bad in unique ways. Most bad games today are a calculated blandness.

Imo it's obvious certain modern titles will have the staying power of current classics. The major companies are just investing in less interesting stuff while they chase microtransactions like junkies, so it feels like a drought to live through.

 

[Duncan Hills Coffee]

I don't play modern games unless it's something that really, really grabs my attention and I know I'm gonna be satisfied with. I bought DMC5 day one and I love the game to bits. Same with Doom 2016. And I just purchased the RE2 remake and am having fun with it. The thing about these games though is that they're all pretty much throwbacks to bygone eras; DMC hearkens back to the super-technical hack-and-slash that was prevalent during the PS2 days, Doom is an old-school FPS with buckets of new paint splashed over it, and RE2 modernizes the original without sacrificing what people loved about it. In other words, I tend to only play modern games that are reminiscent of older games, which is why I rarely play them.

Those are about the only examples I can think of though. 95% of what I buy tends to be older games on the cheap. I've been buying a shitton of old-school PC games I've never played before over the past month, like Postal 1 and Diablo 1. And I also bought Manhunt and Siren for dirt-cheap. And I find myself enjoying them a lot more than I do modern games because they feel a lot more unique. And this isn't me being a nostalgia whore or anything, because I never played these games nor did I grow up playing anything similar.

 

[Otis Boi]

Honestly the more i think about it i hardly ever by new games when they first come out.Unless my normie freind want me to play something with them. At least form the AAA sphere I think the recent Capcom games are the most recent (and if you count ports like Yakuza Kwami and 0 to pc) I think i tend to stick with the indie market or AA publishers like THQ and Paradox. I guess i tend more to RTS/4x games and less towards pure shooters. I mean the most recent game I was super excited about was PREY. I tend to buy older games on GOG now currently doing a run trough of the best good bad game i played since ,Deadly Premonition, Necrovison.

It's weird its like my love for games has gotten deeper but the range of games i actually play is narrower. Am i old now?

 

[c-no]

While there are some modern day games that are worth it (Resident Evil 2 Remake, Hitman 2, Kenshi, Metro: Exodus), one is better off getting by retro titles. Even with all the new vidya that tries to look good or some guy trying to shill out games from earlier this decade looking good with ENB such as Skyrim, I find myself going back to older titles like Wizardry 8, Gothic, and Morrowind. And thanks to some Youtubers like Civvie 11 and Sseth_Tzeentach, I'm also reminded of other old games like Might & Magic 7 and Blood.

Modern titles that try to cash in on the Battle Royale trend and the like? I'm passing up on those, especially with the multiplayer online-only games. As some have said, those have a limited shelf-life and if one can't do private servers, why bother buying a game that's gonna be dead once the servers are gone.

 

[byuu]

When looking at titles like Fable 3, Fallout 3, and New Vegas, even these older games have DLCs,

In case of Fallout, the DLCs were like classic expensions/add-ons. They were developed after the main game was finished. And actually add to the game content.
There's nothing wrong with DLC like that.

 

[Guntburglar]

I feel that the RTS genre has had the worst symptoms of fragmentary shifting that hasn't measured up well at all to their predecessors.
I mean they are making their games Simple Jack as fuck now. The illusion of control over the empire you make is now reduced to matching colors of which buildings to build in order to make the best of an economy. At least in 2004 I had the illusion that I was in control, they're not even trying to hide it anymore.

And the RTS communities want to continually blame the publishers but in this instance I don't believe that the publishers are at fault for making the decision of mind numbingly degradation of their own product, case in point: Dawn of War III creative decisions, Creative Assembly aggressively dumbing down their games as the example above, etc.

 

[Billy_Sama]

And the RTS communities want to continually blame the publishers but in this instance I don't believe that the publishers are at fault for making the decision of mind numbingly degradation of their own product, case in point: Dawn of War III creative decisions, Creative Assembly aggressively dumbing down their games as the example above, etc.

That is the same reason why I can't enjoy Skyrim and Oblivion like I did with Morrowind. Even thought the combat is better, the newer Elder Scrolls are not as immersive as Morrowind with the diversity and experience as they make it more simpler to the console masses.

 

[Just Some Other Guy]

I've always been of the opinion that you can easily get by on retro games. They're classics for a reason, from an era where people actually seemed to give a damn (at least somewhat more than now). There's a few gems here and there, but I don't think more than a handful will ever be played 10 years from now, nor be on any "you should play this" list.

 

[Namesarehardtocomeupwith]

I mean, new games are generally worth it if you weren't being an idiot and preorder/first day the game now that something like broken game and day 1 patch as well as dlc being common. But you can't denied there's merit to a more modern approach.

It's not like retro games are all gold either. For every life force there's a million crappy space shooter out there. As much as I like baldur gate coming back to it after I've played pillars of eternity is just more of a chore. That said, I do agree that most AAA nowadays are pretty garbage and not worth the 60$ price tag, and most modern titles that interested me are made by smaller studio.

 

[UE 558]

In terms of "new games", the only ones I really got into from this gen were Yakuza and the Uncharted 4 (alongside the remastered PS3 games). Aside from that, my PS4 and WiiU libraries are mainly comprised of Rockstar games (and Saints Row, Rockstar's meth addicted cousin), JRPGs, Soulsborne games, stealth games (if you can count Alien Isolation as stealth), hack 'n slash, and children's platformers that make me look like a soyboy numale beta cuck faggot...basically the same kinds of shit I played on my Wii and PS3.

 

[AlephOne2Many]

If I may go on a tangent, looking at how we've preserved retro games that were exclusive to their respective platforms, there's enough evidence to suggest that platform exclusivity as a whole is going to slowly die over time. Time and again these companies have seen the internet explode with various Mario and Zelda related gameplay videos from a PC, plus other related projects (such as ROM hacks). Exclusives will still be a thing, of course as incentive to push consoles, but those will eventually get to lower and lower numbers of IP's, which ends up subtracting from overall sales per year for exclusives. Further evidence that gives this some gravity, Nintendo even giving a mobile games division the time of day. Retro titles can be played on pretty much everything, the current industry would truly want to cash in on that for newer titles.

 

[Shokaract]

Yes they are worth it. Lots of great new games out there and more coming out, just avoid the shit and stop living in the past.

 

[XYZpdq]

Just emulate dude. I've got Ocarina of time+ Super Mario Sunshine and most of the classic SNES catalog (mario,metroid, earthbound)

You idiots are wasting money

Yeah realistically if you have enough free time that you've actually played through every emulatable / abandonware game of worth you should probably get a fucking life.

 

[JM 590]

I just stick to indie games, mostly. It's fun to buy cheap indie bundles and check out what's on offer, and it's a treat when I find a good one. And then you can go on Twitter and tell the developer you liked their game and it'll make their day

There are so many games out there these days, nobody can keep up, I'm surprised the big budget model hasn't collapsed from oversaturation.