Why is it that 2000-2005 games carried on the themes, charm, and color of the 90s, yet 2006-2009 almost immediately switched to DLC, microtransactions, "gritty realism", reboots up the wazoo, grey/brown color palettes, floaty controls, etc.?

For example, compare the game Sonic Heroes (2004) to Sonic 06:
http://i.4cdn.org/v/1446777961115.jpg

What happened? Who let this happen?

They feel adding the extra details you listed is improving the quality. That's really it. It really couldn't have lasted forever. As technology keep advancing, its a why not to them.

The charm is living on through Nintendo though.

They feel adding the extra details you listed is improving the quality. That's really it. It really couldn't have lasted forever. As technology keep advancing, its a why not to them.

I think one of the major problems, too, is that whereas the 90s and beginning of the 2000s were a time of innovation and limitless imagination, the advent of the digital age and simultaneous evolution of social mores has caused the gaming industry to degenerate from a living room get-together activity into a penthouse of hyper-masculinity.  That's why an overwhelming number of video games are premised on "gritty realism" and/or of the FPS genre, and why most gaming communities are full of abhorrently misogynistic bros and internet trolls.  Pretty much 98 percent of all gaming channels on YouTube are now hosted by males, whereas during the 90s and early 2000s, some of the most successful video game franchises (i.e., Myst, The Sims, Pokémon, and Dance Dance Revolution) all had substantial amounts of female fans.  Probably because mainstream society just sticks to mobile games and decries machoism far more than it did in the 80s and 90s, in addition to the stealthy opportunities of online networks, traditional console games have evolved into a sort of safe haven for those who just want to flex their manliness without constraint.

The charm is living on through Nintendo though.


Nintendo's problem is that it hasn't adapted well to the video game industry as it's become since Sega fell off the map.  Their games are now too easy, unoriginal (face it, as fun as games like Super Mario 3D World and the New Super Mario Bros. franchise are, they really aren't breaking boundaries like the Wii did), or lacking in critical features (online mode is either nonexistent or garbage in popular multiplayer franchises like Mario Kart, Super Smash Bros., and Mario Party).  Within a few years, I think Nintendo will go the way of Sega, if the incessant delays of Zelda Wii U (and now Star Fox U), the death of Satoru Iwata, and upcoming mobile market debut are any indication.

In my opinion, video game quality declined significantly when 7th generation consoles became popular and PC gaming died in the late 2000s.  There are numerous things that could have contributed.  The fact that around that time, game development became more about the bottom dollar than innovation is a big one.  The fact that broadband had become mainstream and replaced gaming parties or LAN parties is another.  The one thing I am sure of is that gaming peaked in 2004 and hasn't been the same since.

I really don't know is this topic even relevant? They're just video games. It's not like there's anything bad with them.

I really don't know is this topic even relevant? They're just video games. It's not like there's anything bad with them.


Well, the nature of the gaming industry has transformed drastically since the millennial era, typically for the worse if you're not into FPS's or "interactive movies."  It's a change that became particularly noticeable throughout the 2000s, hence why the topic is here.

Well, the nature of the gaming industry has transformed drastically since the millennial era, typically for the worse if you're not into FPS's or "interactive movies."  It's a change that became particularly noticeable throughout the 2000s, hence why the topic is here.

I stopped playing video games around the time ps3 was coming out

Removing some content from a game and having to make us buy DLC and microtransactions and closing parts of a completed game and making us have to pay for the key to unlock the closed parts of the game is a ripoff. Especially, when you have pay $60 for a incomplete/partially locked game and you still have to spend $40 more on DLC and microtransactions. You could have used the $40 to buy another new game if they were no downloadable content and microtransactions.

Removing some content from a game and having to make us buy DLC and microtransactions and closing parts of a completed game and making us have to pay for the key to unlock the closed parts of the game is a ripoff. Especially, when you have pay $60 for a incomplete/partially locked game and you still have to spend $40 more on DLC and microtransactions. You could have used the $40 to buy another new game if they were no downloadable content and microtransactions.


This plus when the Wii Launched, There was a whole new market of casual and non gamers to milk dry.

Well, the nature of the gaming industry has transformed drastically since the millennial era, typically for the worse if you're not into FPS's or "interactive movies."  It's a change that became particularly noticeable throughout the 2000s, hence why the topic is here.


That is a good way to describe modern first person shooters.  It all began around 2006 when 7th generation consoles came out and the Call of Duty craze took off.

This video is worth a watch.  It's "If Doom was done today"

C4yIxUOWrtw

Another big problem, in addition to the general decline in quality that others have mentioned, is that there just aren't as many big releases in gaming anymore because it takes too long for games to be developed today. Consider this: in the four years between 1997 and 2001 there were four major Final Fantasy games released (VII, VIII, IX, and X), whereas there have only been two major FF games (XII in '06 and XIII in '10) released in the following fourteen years! Square-Enix has been working on Final Fantasy XV for over a decade, and they still haven't given it an official release date yet! How absurd is that?

We see a similar situation with the Zelda series as well. Three major games released in five years between 1998 and 2003 (Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask and Wind Waker), and only two in the next twelve (Twilight Princess in '06 and Skyward Sword in '11). If you look at the overwhelming majority of the biggest series pre-2005 (like Grand Theft Auto, Gran Tourismo, Spyro the Dragon, Crash Bandicoot, Ratchet & Clank, Jak & Daxter, etc.) they almost all had a new game coming out every other year or so. That's a big part of what makes the '90s and early '00s the "Golden Age" of console gaming, just the sheer number of major games you'd have coming out in any given year.

Also, I'm not saying Sonic Heroes is a great game (the controls are really bad and slippery), but it exemplifies the colorful and fun atmosphere of 2000-2005 games well, IMO. Likewise, 06 represents the dreariness and "gritty realism" that more recent developers have been shooting for.

I've personally never understood why the gaming industry has come to so rigidly define video games as interactive movies rather than interactive experiences, like they should be.  Part of what really disconnects me from modern games is that not only do you have to sit through long and tedious cutscenes with little to no action, even the main protagonist has a mind of his/her own most of the time.  Much of the genius of early Nintendo games was that the main character was supposed to represent the player, rather than just an independent mind who you happen to control during action sequences.  In fact, this was how the character Link got his name, since he was the player's "link" to the world of Hyrule.  Even when they did integrate talking on behalf of the main characters, it was always either just action-related exclamations like in Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time, or non-interruptive text boxes like in Star Fox 64.

Nowadays, game developers are too lazy to break new boundaries of interactivity and immersion and instead pass off "manly," "gritty," and "thematically complex" as excuses to watch a bunch of sterile, polygonal models talk on their own before you get to perform a bunch of generic actions.  It's ironic because the first video games that tried harder to be interactive movies, like those on the Sega CD and Panasonic 3DO, were utter failures back when they first came out, but now they're far more direct predecessors of current gaming industry standards than games for the Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis, Nintendo 64, and most PS1 titles are.

I stopped playing video games around the time ps3 was coming out


I continue to play video games.

Removing some content from a game and having to make us buy DLC and microtransactions and closing parts of a completed game and making us have to pay for the key to unlock the closed parts of the game is a ripoff. Especially, when you have pay $60 for a incomplete/partially locked game and you still have to spend $40 more on DLC and microtransactions. You could have used the $40 to buy another new game if they were no downloadable content and microtransactions.


just like a wrestling game where now you have to pay for downloadable unlocked characters.

IDK. Saints Row 2 has a much more in-depth customisation and more unique mechanics in it (entering the interiors of buildings after having done missions in it, character idle animations etc.) until GTA V came in five years after this game was released, and even with GTA V you need an online connection or to mod the game to get to where Saints Row 2's at. However, people have complained about Saints Row 2's pretty dismal graphics and slow gameplay, like its competing video game GTA IV.

There was DLC and microtransactions in the 00s?

There was DLC and microtransactions in the 00s?

Yes.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/03/download-oblivions-horse-armor-for-a-price/

Yes.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/03/download-oblivions-horse-armor-for-a-price/

This only mentions DLC, which admittedly has been around since the 90s. Microtransactions however are strictly a 2010s invention. They didn't exist in the 00s, not even on mobile.


As for the topic at hand. I wouldn't say gaming just fell off the edge after a year. Games like Super Mario galaxy took the world by storm and redefined 3D platformers for the modern age. Sadly it's the 2010s that no longer cares about 3D platformers anymore. Ignoring quality, there used to be at least 3 or 4 new 3D platformer installments released a year between 2006-2009. The biggest known ones that come to memory are the Mario, Ape escape the Crash and Spyro games, and Uncharted in a loose sense.

I actually used to think games became more gritty too. But it seems OP and I didn't play enough old games to really get the atmosphere of the library in the 80s 90s and early 00s. After playing tons of games from NES to PS2, I can say games in general didn't really get any darker, only Nintendo has been king of bright and cutesy since the SNES. One clear bit of evidence is from the 90s with the release of Spyro the dragon in 1998.

If you read the origins behind the creation of Spyro by Insomniac games, you'll read that it was created specifically because the Playstation 1 was considered too gritty a console for all ages and didn't have enough light hearted games to compete with the N64. I own a PS1 and have enough games to attest to this. Most of the Playstation's "light hearted" games came in 1999 onwards, the rest of the library is melodramatic jrpg's and even shooters believe it or not. It's only N64 that fits the mold OP is describing the pre-2006 era as. Some of the SNES's biggest games and most of Genesis were games like Mortal kombat and Street fighter. And watching the AVGN will show you all the gritty games that flooded the NES. Sega's marketing campaigns back in the day used to be all about Nintendo being "kiddy"and how you could only get the" gritty" games on Genesis. The 6th gen is undoubtedly the Golden age of gaming, I won't deny. You had 4 different consoles and games raining from the sky. But PS2 was popular enough that it's huge library had titles ranging from Grabbed by the ghoulies to Call of Duty, the other consoles, again save the big N, were rife with dark and gritty games filling up the AAA library. Xbox especially.

7th gen was PC tier in the 2006 which is why PC gaming briefly took a backseat until 2008. For a long time, the PC dominated online gaming and cutting edge technology. Then comes the 360 and PS3 to beat it at its own game. PS3 tbh wasn't that popular back in the 00s but it's library was still very much PS2ish in diversity between light hearted and gritty. 360 was a little more dominated with gritty shooters, particularly in it's early years before it's online took off. Once that online marketplace took off, it opened the door for indie developers to make the colourful looking games.

That's fundamentally what's been happening since. Indies took over the colourful generes while the AAA sector is slowly killing itself with increasingly burnt out sequels of gritty games.

To sum things up Contra on NES and CoD are one in the same. They are both military shooters with gritty presentations. The only thing separating them is the NES's simple graphics capabilities.

And speaking of online microtransactions, patches and other always online systems in gaming. Those definitely couldn't have existed/thrived in the 00s beyond PS3 and PC for one main reason. The Wii had no reliable online, and the pre-2010 Xbox 360 shipped out of the box with no Wi-Fi support or Internet connectivity what so ever. Meaning that for any game on 360 with online support in the 00s. Online would have to take a back seat.
The 2000s decade that started the online craze ironically couldn't integrate it as standard due to the still high population of people with out Internet.

There was DLC and microtransactions in the 00s?



they want you to pay for characters instead of playing the game and earning your unlockables.

This only mentions DLC, which admittedly has been around since the 90s. Microtransactions however are strictly a 2010s invention. They didn't exist in the 00s, not even on mobile.


As for the topic at hand. I wouldn't say gaming just fell off the edge after a year. Games like Super Mario galaxy took the world by storm and redefined 3D platformers for the modern age. Sadly it's the 2010s that no longer cares about 3D platformers anymore. Ignoring quality, there used to be at least 3 or 4 new 3D platformer installments released a year between 2006-2009. The biggest known ones that come to memory are the Mario, Ape escape the Crash and Spyro games, and Uncharted in a loose sense.


Mario had a mini-golden age throughout the 2nd half of the 2000's decade, it was like the next generation of the games from the 80's. New Super Mario Bros, Mario Kart DS & Wii, and Super Mario Galaxy (my favorite of all) immediately come to mind. That and the Wii's popularity was like the last major great time of gaming for me. Although, I still consider 5th & 6th generation gaming (1995-2006) as a whole as the golden age of the video game industry hands down. While 1st half of 7th generation (2006-2009) was the silver age. I did enjoy Call of Duty Black Ops I & II, Saints Row I-III, Battlefield III, NCAA Football 13/14, and Madden Football 25, and I still play Madden Football today, but like you said, since the 2010's 3D platformers and many other genres of gaming have died out in popularity. Due to online gaming becoming the norm in almost every game you buy and it's more about the advertisements/$$$$ nowadays instead of the game play experience. It seems like it takes longer to develop the next version of games now, like after a new game in the series comes out it takes like 6 or 7 more years until the next one, probably because of how gaming has evolved. History tells us that every 2 generations there seems to be a major shift in gaming.

Another big problem, in addition to the general decline in quality that others have mentioned, is that there just aren't as many big releases in gaming anymore because it takes too long for games to be developed today. Consider this: in the four years between 1997 and 2001 there were four major Final Fantasy games released (VII, VIII, IX, and X), whereas there have only been two major FF games (XII in '06 and XIII in '10) released in the following fourteen years! Square-Enix has been working on Final Fantasy XV for over a decade, and they still haven't given it an official release date yet! How absurd is that?


I've noticed this lately too, it's weird, and HOW is it that when it comes to Call of Duty Black Ops (nothing against this game I enjoy it) that we have the 1st one in 2010, the 2nd in 2012, and now the 3rd one just came out 3 days ago, just in a 5 year span! However, as you mentioned for Final Fantasy, it's taken that long for XII and XIII in the next 14 year span like you mentioned, unlike the other quick releases from 1997-2001. I believe a similar situation has happened to Grand Theft Auto as well, like how quickly San Andreas came out after III, and then the big gaps between IV and V. I believe Star Fox had a similar problem as well! But for Call of Duty Black Ops like I mentioned previously, you get 3 quick releases in that span. Does it have something to do with the development, the popularity in the genres, company budgets or something?

I've noticed this lately too, it's weird, and HOW is it that when it comes to Call of Duty Black Ops (nothing against this game I enjoy it) that we have the 1st one in 2010, the 2nd in 2012, and now the 3rd one just came out 3 days ago, just in a 5 year span! However, as you mentioned for Final Fantasy, it's taken that long for XII and XIII in the next 14 year span like you mentioned, unlike the other quick releases from 1997-2001. I believe a similar situation has happened to Grand Theft Auto as well, like how quickly San Andreas came out after III, and then the big gaps between IV and V. I believe Star Fox had a similar problem as well! But for Call of Duty Black Ops like I mentioned previously, you get 3 quick releases in that span. Does it have something to do with the development, the popularity in the genres, company budgets or something?


GTA III came out in 2001 and San Andreas came out in 2004. There was vice City in 2002 to hold people over. San Andreas had a bigger map and a lot of different gameplay elements like swimming, boats, etc. . Rockstar took time tweaking the gameplay and i think changed developers between III and SA. COD Black ops and Modern Warfare have released a new game every year. A lot of people criticize games like COD, Madden, WWE for not changing enough from the last game released. GTA IV and V played like two completely different games and the 5 year development process between this shows this.

GTA III came out in 2001 and San Andreas came out in 2004. There was vice City in 2002 to hold people over. San Andreas had a bigger map and a lot of different gameplay elements like swimming, boats, etc. . Rockstar took time tweaking the gameplay and i think changed developers between III and SA. COD Black ops and Modern Warfare have released a new game every year. A lot of people criticize games like COD, Madden, WWE for not changing enough from the last game released. GTA IV and V played like two completely different games and the 5 year development process between this shows this.


Oh yeah I already know that GTA III was 2001 and San Andreas was 2004. I get what your saying though, because for the time it takes for new game releases it depends on how much development and afford is put into the updates. Now for Madden or NBA 2K games that's different and personally I wouldn't use those sports games as a comparison, because every year it's a brand new season when they just update players, rosters, statuses, records, who's won Super Bowls/championships, etc. and add a few features to it and that's about it, while the play of the game always stays the same. So it's a requirement that Madden or NBA 2K games have to come out each year no matter what. Everything else you're spot on though.

Now I wouldn't say video games declined in the mid 2000s, they just weren't as good as the games that were released in the Early 2000s, doesn't mean it declined.

Now I wouldn't say video games declined in the mid 2000s, they just weren't as good as the games that were released in the Early 2000s, doesn't mean it declined.


Agree! I also think it depends on your favorite genre of games as well, or which franchise you preferred. As long as it was 5th or 6th generation it was in a golden age for me regardless of what people say.

If you prefer older style, "open world" first person shooters, yes they declined after 2004 and they declined fast.  Single player, story driven RPGs also declined in favor of MMORPGs.

If you prefer interactive movies and online multiplayer i.e. Battlefield and CoD, then you probably prefer 7th generation so you probably loved gaming in the late '00s.

If you prefer interactive movies and online multiplayer i.e. Battlefield and CoD, then you probably prefer 7th generation so you probably loved gaming in the late '00s.


You'd might as well extend that to the early 2010's, because COD: Black Ops I & II were VERY popular by tons of people in high school!

Now I wouldn't say video games declined in the mid 2000s, they just weren't as good as the games that were released in the Early 2000s, doesn't mean it declined.


I think it was because they added more DLC to the games.

You'd might as well extend that to the early 2010's, because COD: Black Ops I & II were VERY popular by tons of people in high school!


I would extend it to the present.  The shift in gaming that occurred after 2004 has lasted to the present day.  There have been a few indie games of the old ilk, like Amnesia: The Dark Descent and a few RPGs like Skyrim, but for the most part gaming today is primarily MMORPGS, multiplayer deathmatch FPS, and "interactive movies."  By "interactive movies" I am referring to games, usually FPS, that lack the open world of the games of yesteryear, hold the players hand, and are filled with cutscenes for story.  Think Wolfenstein: The New Order.

By "interactive movies" I am referring to games, usually FPS, that lack the open world of the games of yesteryear, hold the players hand, and are filled with cutscenes for story.  Think Wolfenstein: The New Order.


Uncharted for me.

If you prefer older style, "open world" first person shooters, yes they declined after 2004 and they declined fast.  Single player, story driven RPGs also declined in favor of MMORPGs.

If you prefer interactive movies and online multiplayer i.e. Battlefield and CoD, then you probably prefer 7th generation so you probably loved gaming in the late '00s.

Interactive movies in the late 00s? Which were like that? The closest was Gears of War, and even that had a distinction between cutscene and gameplay. Interactive cutscenes are a very recent folly in gaming. The late 00s seems to have started the cinematic craze at worst.

Interactive movies in the late 00s? Which were like that? The closest was Gears of War, and even that had a distinction between cutscene and gameplay. Interactive cutscenes are a very recent folly in gaming. The late 00s seems to have started the cinematic craze at worst.


It wasn't as bad in the late '00s as it is today but many of the trends that plague single player games today got their start during the era.  The worst of which is lazy level design and games that think they need to hold the players hand.  You can definitely see the evolution of single player gaming by playing the following games.

1. Return to Castle Wolfenstein (2001)
2. Wolfenstein (2009)
3. Wolfenstein: The New Order (2012)

RtCW in 2001 had completely open maps and limited cutscenes.  The game would drop you into the level and you had to find your way out.  This involved exploring every nook and cranny to find keycards, health, ammo, etc.  The game was a blast and had excellent replayability.  Fast forward to Wolfenstein 2009 and you now had more cutscenes, streamlined level designs, the addition of checkpoints rather than game saves, and a compass to guide the player in the direction they are supposed to go.  No more exploring and getting lost in the level.  No more having to figure out the best way to get from point A to point B and get there alive.  Fast forward to 2012 and the latest game is an interactive movie.  There is no more exploring whatsoever as the game holds your hand all the way though and you no longer even have to worry about health being that it auto-regenerates as soon as you take cover.  They have removed everything that made RtCW 2001 the great game it was.  It's an example of everything wrong with today's games.

I say the decline occurred in the late 00s. During the middle, there were still wonderful games being released such as Halo 2, GTA San Andreas, Saint's Row and Forza Motorsport. In addition to that, the unnecessary things like DLC, micro-transactions, game patches and updates had not taken place yet.

I also agree with BChris and Machine He@d as I've noticed this as well. There are some other games (or sequels) that were/are taking a long time to be released such as Kingdom Hearts 3, Halo 5, Borderlands 2, Bayonetta 2 etc. Moreover, the whole interactive cut-scenes, the only-online multiplayer and not being able to explore through the game has been awful. I feel that gaming has took a huge toll and it's definitely not the same. I miss it when was it all about having fun with family and friends and not about entertainment.

I miss it when was it all about having fun with family and friends and not about entertainment.

Now it's all about the money.

Can 2006 be mathematically considered "late 2000s"? If so, that was the year where DLC and "gritty realism" started to come into play, though they didn't really get out of hand until 2007-08.

Can 2006 be mathematically considered "late 2000s"? If so, that was the year where DLC and "gritty realism" started to come into play, though they didn't really get out of hand until 2007-08.


In my opinion, from the perspective of a PC gamer, gaming peaked in 2004 but was still decent through 2006. I agree 2007 was the year it really started to get out of hand.  There are probably less than a dozen games since 2007 that I've thoroughly enjoyed.

The downhill slide of games, for both PC and console, coincided with 7th generation consoles.  That was also when gaming was streamlined between the three platforms (PS3, Xbox360, and PC), causing a lot more technical issues in games than had previously been the norm.  2006 was the last year that 6th generation was still relevant so its no coincidence it was the last year of classic-style gaming.

Can 2006 be mathematically considered "late 2000s"? If so, that was the year where DLC and "gritty realism" started to come into play, though they didn't really get out of hand until 2007-08.


Mathematically, January-August 2006 is still mid 2000's, but September 2006-December 2006 is late 2000's. Culturally 2006 is still mostly mid 2000's, but you could really say there were some late 2000's influences coming in as early as the end of 2005.

Mathematically, January-August 2006 is still mid 2000's, but September 2006-December 2006 is late 2000's. Culturally 2006 is still mostly mid 2000's, but you could really say there were some late 2000's influences coming in as early as the end of 2005.

In that case, it seems Sept-Dec 2006 was when the remnants of the 6th generation were washed away, and the gritty realism/reboots I mentioned began to take over (Sonic '06 is a good example of this).