Comment by YurgenJurgensen 2 days ago
Why were those games on the top of your head? If things were as healthy as you claim, surely your head would be full of exciting new titles? Would you have, in 2006, brought up Sonic the Hedgehog 2 or Doom as titles to show modern gaming’s superiority over the Atari 2600?
So you’re admitting that “barely” any progress has been made in a decade. Perhaps you can use that fact to divine what you’re missing.
Ok, last comment from me as I truly believe you're just here to be annoying at this point, but I'm also passionate about this subject.
There has been barely any technological progress in the last decade, yes. Which is what makes the last 10 years not compareable to the 1996-2006 period. During that period, you had massive technological innovation which could inform and enable innovations in gaming at a greater rate than the current technological trends allow for. You can only do the 2D to 3D transition once. We can't really go into 4D.
But that's TECHNOLOGICAL progress. Gaming is also an art. Art doesn't "progress", it just changes. Harry Potter isn't more "progressed" than the Epic of Gilgamesh, it's just different.
I could write much more, but you clearly don't actually have an opinion, as you never respond to anything, you just try to "gotcha" me, and even when presented with good modern games you just decide they're invalid cause they don't fit your undefined definition of modern. Then when you do get "modern" games given, you dismiss them cause they weren't presented first.
This is so dumb man, truly.
Why are you trying to do weird gotchas instead of engaging with the discussion? I don't get it.
And comparing time periods like that isn't proper, 10 year old tech now is a lot more similar than 10 year old tech was in 2006. 1996 and 2006 are vastly different tech-landscapes. 2016 and 2026? Barely different.
Or do we wanna pretend the leap from Doom to Crysis is the same as the leap from the Witcher 3 to Clair Obscur? Modern is a relative term and we did not define it at the start of this conversation.
So for you to just join in afterwards and retroactively try to apply your own definition, which you are yet to share, on to my original comment just doesn't make much sense?
What are you trying to prove? Who are you trying to convince? And of what? Chill out man.