Veterans in what way?

You claim that these "veterans" make higher quality games, by knowing where to "cut costs".

I say nay.

The golden age of games was 1990-2000. How could developers of classic games be "veterans" at all? They were simply pioneers. Nothing of that ilk had been done before.

We see what you "veterans" have to offer, the same repetitive, watered-down, rehashes of rehashes, FIFA 15, COD 19, Halo 12. You're right about one thing, veterans do "cut costs". And we see that reflected in EA Games Battlefield series. All the levels are sloppy hasty sandbox with random preset building placement. A 3 year old could generate the qualitiy of levels seen in these EA Games.

There are no more John Carmacks. And even the John Carmacks go loopy after a while, and make dai-katana games. The gaming industry has gone downhill since 2000. Banjo Kazooie 3? The graphics are supposedly "HD" yet are a cacophony of mismatched colors and random polygon soup.

We see what you "veterans" have to offer, the same repetitive, watered-down, rehashes of rehashes, FIFA 15, COD 19, Halo 12. You're right about one thing, veterans do "cut costs". And we see that reflected in EA Games Battlefield series. All the levels are sloppy hasty sandbox with random preset building placement. A 3 year old could generate the qualitiy of levels seen in these EA Games.

There are no more John Carmacks. And even the John Carmacks go loopy after a while, and make dai-katana games. The gaming industry has gone downhill since 2000. Banjo Kazooie 3? The graphics are supposedly "HD" yet are a cacophony of mismatched colors and random polygon soup.

Genuinely curious. When was the last time you went trawling through Steam? I can think of a number of games on Steam that I would not call "repetitive, watered-down rehashes of rehashes."

The golden age of games was 1990-2000. How could developers of classic games be "veterans" at all?

Veterans in what way?

You claim that these "veterans" make higher quality games, by knowing where to "cut costs".

I say nay.

The golden age of games was 1990-2000. How could developers of classic games be "veterans" at all? They were simply pioneers. Nothing of that ilk had been done before.

We see what you "veterans" have to offer, the same repetitive, watered-down, rehashes of rehashes, FIFA 15, COD 19, Halo 12. You're right about one thing, veterans do "cut costs". And we see that reflected in EA Games Battlefield series. All the levels are sloppy hasty sandbox with random preset building placement. A 3 year old could generate the qualitiy of levels seen in these EA Games.

There are no more John Carmacks. And even the John Carmacks go loopy after a while, and make dai-katana games. The gaming industry has gone downhill since 2000. Banjo Kazooie 3? The graphics are supposedly "HD" yet are a cacophony of mismatched colors and random polygon soup.

Similar enough response to Oberon but handpicking a few games that fit your argument is not the best way to present yourself. There are tonnes of games in the last year or two that have been amazing games. Also it helps to not look at old games through rose tinted glasses.

The golden age of games was 1990-2000. How could developers of classic games be "veterans" at all?

They could be veterans because they had developed games throughout the 1980s, and some of them in the 1970s.

The newest Steam games are boring and mediocre. It follows this simple formula.

Novelty factor=sqr(time-1990)/sqr(consumer_stupidity)

What this means is, starting at 1990 people were easy to please, the novelty factor was low.

2000's games had to be bigger and better, 2d wasn't even enough anymore.

Nowadays the Novelty factor is so larger, 3d, virtual reality, the box is so large noone can think outside of it. Mario is dead, the Beatles are dead.

Any game nowadays is not going to break the novelty factor by using cheap tactics like "wowing" people with minor graphics improvements.

Creative individuals are needed, wheras veterans pump out the same homogenized filth day in day out. It amuses the idiot consumers, and the average igoramus flocks to stores to purchase the latest repetitve clone of clones. Sales rockets, whilst art dies.

The newest Steam games are boring and mediocre.

<snip>

I'm going off-topic here, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember you posting about how you've had bad experiences on other game dev related forums.

You've been a member of this forum for little over a week and you start calling a large part of its userbase "idiots" (yes, even though we develop games we're still consumers) and you start bashing some very talented and experienced people (some of those who also frequent these forums) while incoherently ranting about how bad you think video games are these days.

I can absolutely see why these other forums might have had a bad opinion of you.

It is fair to have to have opinions on the state of the industry that go against the popular opinion, but if you want to get your points across you might want to rethink your phrasing. Don't expect to get a lot of sympathy by insulting the people you're having a discussion with.

I do not know what you're trying to prove, maybe you're a troll and you're doing this for fun, I don't care, but if you genuinely want to contribute please reconsider how you want to get your point across because this is not working.

I do not know what you're trying to prove, maybe you're a troll and you're doing this for fun, I don't care, but if you genuinely want to contribute please reconsider how you want to get your point across because this is not working.

Am I a Troll?

IF the truth is often humorous, am I not a Joker?