this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
137 points (96.6% liked)

Games

41497 readers
1002 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Rules

1. Submissions have to be related to games

Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.

This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.

2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.

We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.

3. No excessive self-promotion

Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.

This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.

4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you're submitting before posting to see if it's already been posted.

We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.

5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.

No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.

6. No linking to piracy

Don't share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.

We don't want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.

Authorized Regular Threads

Related communities

PM a mod to add your own

Video games

Generic

Help and suggestions

By platform

By type

By games

Language specific

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] k1ck455kc@sh.itjust.works 24 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (6 children)

The quality of games did not improve, in fact game quality and diversity has deteriorated. The quantity of content has dropped off as well. Graphics fidelity and production costs have skyrocketed though.

Graphics are so superficial when it comes to games anyhow, why would anyone pay more for a pretty waste of time?

Edit: i am talking about AAA games here, obv there has been an extreme proliferation of indie titles

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 5 hours ago

a good case study is swsh, pokemon, starting from that, it lower and lower quality, yet people sitll buy it,.

[–] Fermion@feddit.nl 13 points 23 hours ago

"Fancy graphics" also doesn't correlate well with how visually appealing a game is. I would take Ori graphics over CoD any day.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Neither quality nor diversity are objective measures, and I'd certainly disagree with you that they didn't improve.

[–] k1ck455kc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Yes both very subjective. Accessibility and streamlining gameplay has seemed to be the focus. Developing unique, novel but also enjoyable new gameplay experiences? (the reason i believe most people game) That more or less ended with the Wii, Ps3 and 360 era of consoles.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I will, respectfully, still disagree with that assertion. Just because Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, and the like are on their umpteenth entry, does not mean that no more unique and novel games are being made.

[–] k1ck455kc@sh.itjust.works 5 points 21 hours ago

I would argue that AAA full priced gaming space is not where that innovation has been happening in recent years, it has mostly been with lower priced indies.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago

Well, because purchasing power has also collapsed in that span of time, obvi

/s

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Diversity and quality are both going to be difficult to measure objectively, and I'd argue both are still in better supply today. Quantity is far easier to prove objectively. Not only are there just far more games out there, but try some like for like comparisons of some of your favorite long-running franchises on How Long to Beat. Assassin's Creed II was 20-25 hours; Assassin's Creed: Shadows is 35-64. Halo 2 was 9-12; Halo Infinite is 11-20. Baldur's Gate 3 is close to as long as its two predecessors combined. Call of Duty is three games in one now.

[–] k1ck455kc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

The value of a game's Quantity is directly proportionate to its Quality though, starfield and its 1000s of repetitive planets are the perfect example of this. Would any halo fan rather play 20 hours of infinite or 20 hours of halo 2...?

Yes there have been outliers of increased quality and quantity over the last decade, but in the full priced AAA space nowadays, that is the exception not the rule.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Quantity is directly proportionate to quality though

I'd disagree with that premise. It's not like they're making just as much game in the same amount of time. Games are taking way longer to make these days than they used to. As I'm 70+ hours into Kingdom Come: Deliverance II and nowhere near done, they could have made about 2/3 as much game as they made, and it still would have been phenomenal and worth the price. The same goes for Baldur's Gate 3, not to say that I'm unhappy about how much of it I have.

I don't think the high quality games are outliers. We just have so many more games coming out these days that it becomes more and more likely that we get some bangers in that volume. EA or Ubisoft may be putting out fewer games because of how long they take to make, but they've got more competition than they did 20 years ago.

[–] k1ck455kc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

As the end user why should i pay sympathetically for the extended dev time of a product that hasnt tangibly improved for my uses?

Yes the price ceiling of $70 does not do justice to games like KCD 2, but all that matters for the end user is perceived value. If the perceived value of any game isnt going up, then it is difficult to charge consumers an increased amount.

KCD 2 and Elden Ring are great examples of RPGs with content that fans perceive as a great value, but only AFTER playing.

Maybe KCD 3 or Elden Ring 2 can push their perceived value beyond $70, but the simple fact is that the majority of AAA games DO NOT offer an amount or quality of content that gamers would consider to be worth $70, especially with the tiering off of content with various editions, passes and DLC.

It is just subjective that you and i disagree about the amount of games that cross the value threshold of $70, but the evidence of a $0 cost increase for full priced games over the past decade or so definitely seems like evidence towards my perspective.

I wish i could pay more money for higher quality games with more content, but the advertising for these products happens within a competitive and reciprocal market, and that market has a mean perceived product value of $70.

KCD 2 and Elden Ring have essentially wasted dev time/cost creating bonus content, although the perceived value towards their brands it has created, plus the positive IP mind share, will pay off for them down the road with units sold i am sure.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

As the end user why should i pay sympathetically for the extended dev time of a product that hasnt tangibly improved for my uses?

That's not the point I was making. The price you're paying is the same, but they're delivering more for the same price, which you argued they were not. Then you said that quality dipped when they made more, which I argued it did not, and the reason for that is because they're spending more time making it, so they don't have to sacrifice quality to build more game, because they can give it as much attention as they've always given it but for longer.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Ask everyone shoveling money and then praising remasters incessantly.