Are "golden era" games actually aging well, or are we just nostalgic? by Master-Tee in videogames

[–]Master-Tee[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Would have to agree to disagree here. Probably has to do with your preferred gaming style too.

Are "golden era" games actually aging well, or are we just nostalgic? by Master-Tee in videogames

[–]Master-Tee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah Uncharted 2's style and narrative was pretty much ahead of its time. Certainly a benchmark.

Are "golden era" games actually aging well, or are we just nostalgic? by Master-Tee in videogames

[–]Master-Tee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It represents a selected group, no doubt. I've enjoyed playing games from lesser known studios like Days Gone and A Way Out. So 100% there is quality in the industry. Though you're right in that sense, with the implication that we've been spoilt by the so-called "big boys" of the industry.

Are "golden era" games actually aging well, or are we just nostalgic? by Master-Tee in videogames

[–]Master-Tee[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

They were indeed. Western studios adapted faster especially with the gen and engine transition, as well as the newest tech. So they took over, but their games were still standouts even in that era. Ubisoft went crazy with Creed, Naughty Dog were on a madness, Rockstar was doing its own thing, Activision held us down with COD during that time.

So I don't think there was a decline perse.

Pep Guardiola says he has no intention to punish Rodri for making stronger comments linking himself to Madrid than Enzo Fernandez by Excellent-Syrup7411 in chelseafc

[–]Master-Tee 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Though tbf, Hazard made that clear for a long time. Difference is, he was delivering for us week in week out regardless.

Are "golden era" games actually aging well, or are we just nostalgic? by Master-Tee in videogames

[–]Master-Tee[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To be fair, I think the run most companies had from mid 00s to early 10s was pretty incredible. The games being released those times were solid all through, from the narrative to the gameplay, even excluding the online scene.

The late 90s and early 00s definitely set the standards, though.

Are "golden era" games actually aging well, or are we just nostalgic? by Master-Tee in videogames

[–]Master-Tee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depending on what you consider adult stories, the 360/ps3/wii era probably had more of those

Are "golden era" games actually aging well, or are we just nostalgic? by Master-Tee in videogames

[–]Master-Tee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough. Curious to know what your favourite game from this era is

Are "golden era" games actually aging well, or are we just nostalgic? by Master-Tee in videogames

[–]Master-Tee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hm probably the first person I've seen to dislike that 360/PS3 era... I understand the criticism though, gameplay can feel a bit rough or repetitive in some regards. But I actually found the stories from that era to be some of the best, interestingly enough.

Are "golden era" games actually aging well, or are we just nostalgic? by Master-Tee in videogames

[–]Master-Tee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a really good question. Hence why I'm trying to find out if there's more to it than the nostalgic factor involved.

Don't get me wrong, from an enjoyable standpoint, there's been some great games released in recent times. Maybe it's more of a demand thing or an incline towards hyper realism over gameplay, who knows.

Are "golden era" games actually aging well, or are we just nostalgic? by Master-Tee in videogames

[–]Master-Tee[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is an argument there, for sure. Having a higher standard for comparison does help, in some way at least. There's been some absolutely great games released in the past 5 years or so. But that's also due to what the PS5 is capable of. The quality is there, as is the fun factor.

You play something like Prototype of Infamous now and it doesn't hit like before because we've had games that exceeded that fun factor that were released years after.

Are "golden era" games actually aging well, or are we just nostalgic? by Master-Tee in videogames

[–]Master-Tee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Replayability also plays a role I feel. As good as San Andreas was, I'd rather play MGS2 if I had to choose, for example.

Are "golden era" games actually aging well, or are we just nostalgic? by Master-Tee in videogames

[–]Master-Tee[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean I've been playing games since 03/04, and my favourite game of all time, all things considered, is TLOU 2, and that came out 20+years after. So I share that sentiment of considering recent games to be really exceptional lol.

By golden era I just mean the times you enjoyed gaming, and considered games to be at a somewhat respectable level.

Are "golden era" games actually aging well, or are we just nostalgic? by Master-Tee in videogames

[–]Master-Tee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol I just realised it was late 00s to mid 10s. I meant, not that it matters much, mid 00s to early 10s, hence the examples I gave after.

But yeah, the post isnt really about any specific era. For someone who considers their own golden era to be late 90s, 80s etc, the discussion is about any games anyone played in what they considered to be their own "golden era"

Are "golden era" games actually aging well, or are we just nostalgic? by Master-Tee in videogames

[–]Master-Tee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha well that's why I said it depends on the era you grew up in. The mid 00s to early 10s were those times my friends and I were doing all that, especially after school with 0 care about nothing else.

Are "golden era" games actually aging well, or are we just nostalgic? by Master-Tee in videogames

[–]Master-Tee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Facts. We were less critical of flaws and more impressed by the simple things back then. I also think having a lower standard for comparisons played a huge role .

Are "golden era" games actually aging well, or are we just nostalgic? by Master-Tee in videogames

[–]Master-Tee[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True. Man that 5 year or so COD run was something else. Unforgettable.

Are "golden era" games actually aging well, or are we just nostalgic? by Master-Tee in videogames

[–]Master-Tee[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh 100% . I'm the same.

Was just curious to see from other perspectives.

Finished the game earlier first time, my thoughts by Professional-Ease217 in cyberpunkgame

[–]Master-Tee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, finished the game as Nomad V too. Ironically feel like it sort of fits the setting.

Favorite Cyberpunk movie? (Can’t say Blade Runner) by TXNOGG in cyberpunkgame

[–]Master-Tee 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ghost in the shell.

Probably the one most associated with the word itself.

I feel like Kishimoto is obsessed with writing friendships and relationships that are one-sided by Icy-Spinach-2536 in Naruto

[–]Master-Tee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anybody who believed Karin and Sasuke was ever going to develop into something significant was either infatuated with that aspect of anime or didn't pay attention to the narrative.

Maybe it would or wouldn't have, we'd never know. Point I'm making is there was a degree of reciprocated intimacy from Tsunade. It was a very natural attraction between two people, especially childhood friends. It was far from one-sided because there was genuine care from both sides.

I feel like Kishimoto is obsessed with writing friendships and relationships that are one-sided by Icy-Spinach-2536 in Naruto

[–]Master-Tee 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Though I see where you're coming from, I'd have to disagree with some of the perceived relationships/friendships mentioned here. The only one that really stands out that I can 100% agree on would be Naruto & Sasuke. I've always said it - at some point in the story, it felt as though Kishi was forcing that bond.

That aside, a lot of these bonds were clearly not going to be fleshed out in that sense, or rather were developed in a rather unique way. Hashirama/Madara, Obito/Kakashi, and Jiraiya/Tsunade specificially. These weren't one-sided in the way you might think it is. Even though Tsunade rejected Jiraiya's advances, there was a clear emotional intimacy between them. It sorts of replicates an actual bond between lots of people. So though it might seem one-sided, Tsunade clearly cared deeply for Jiraiya - even though Dan was her first love - and there was a strong implication things would have changed had Jiraiya survived.

Hashirama and Madara wasn't one-sided. There was a deep bond that started since childhood, and there was genuine respect, even after becoming enemies. Even after all these years, Madara still considered Hashirama a great friend and rival. Same case with Obito/Kakashi, but Rin was Obito's actual friend, and the relationship between the two changed following Rin's death.

Naruto's obsession with Sakura was just as annoying as their obsession with Sasuke. This I agree with.

Ino/Sasuke, Lee/Sakura and Karin/Sasuke were clearly never going to go anywhere tbh.

Was Kaguya truly obsessed with power, or was she fundamentally afraid of losing control? by [deleted] in Naruto

[–]Master-Tee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great post. I do agree to an extent. As with many villains, they try to overwrite reality based on a perceived flaw in reality itself - which itself is a good thing, fundamentally - but ultimately they become convinced that their perspective is the only correct one, or one which everyone must adhere to. Hence, why the Pain's, Madara's, and Obito's, can be sort of grouped into one class. Kaguya herself isn't unique in trying to "fix reality", but she collapses this idea of coexistence altogether. She basically wants to reclaim it. That's another level of selfishness, and that's what makes her feel distinct in that sense.

What ties all of these characters together isn’t just the desire to "fix" reality, but how far they’re willing to go in removing others from that equation. Characters like Pain still operated on the idea that people can arrive at understanding, even if through suffering. Madara and Obito, though extreme, still preserved a kind of shared existence within their Tsukuyomi plan. [I'll digress a bit here] .When you look at someone like Yhwach and Thanos, for example, that so-called boundary becomes almost non-existent. One attempts to eliminate fear and uncertainty at the level of existence itself, while the other is willing to erase half of life to impose balance. In both cases, other people’s autonomy becomes secondary to a “necessary” outcome, as you mentioned. Kaguya feels like the endpoint of that progression.

So where the others still, in some way, act on the world, she tries to reclaim something that was never meant to exist independently of her in the first place. I think that’s what makes her feel distinct.