Why do new "Classics" almost never happen?

Because the videogames industry died and movie games took over

I feel like there are plenty of games that people will go back to from these days. The souls games as a whole, for instance. Plenty of strong indie titles.
The big difference I think from then and now is that we're so interconnected and there's such a huge focus on online multiplayer (which will inevitably die one day) it's harder to consider them a classic. People generally don't think of a classic as something that's nigh impossible to revisit.

So AAA singleplayer games are already rare compared to the old days, but we're also getting less AAA games in general, instead getting fewer games made at a higher budget, intended to have a shelf life of years rather than a few days.

How is Bioshock a fake classic?

I actually sort-of enjoyed gone home when it came out (i bought it knowing nothing about it like the morning it came out, no outside influences, just "fuck, I could go for a mystery game, impulse buy," though it ended up being overpriced as fuck) and I wasn't blown away by edith finch.
It does a few interesting things with the walking sim genre but IMO I didn't put it on the level of stanley parable as far as cleverness

it is way better than those two thats for sure, apart from its compelling art style and story, game allows you to choose the path you want when telling that said story, and every "memory arc" (you'll get it) is represented with a minigame that portrays the overall theme of it.

One memory arc really stands out as a really fantastic piece of content, if you played it you know it and if you haven't try to experience it without getting spoiled.

Bioshock Infinite was propped up to an absurd degree by reviewers and people easily won over by cute peppy girls.
People were saying that it was the first true game-as-art, that it forever changed the industry, but as a game it's way too simplified next to its predecessors and the story itself is propped up by initially engaging but ultimately shallow-feeling alternate dimension twists. What they sacrificed in gameplay wasn't worth it for the complete package. I replay bioshock and even bioshock 2 every now and again but I'd be hard pressed to replay BSI.

To me it's sort of the equivalent to when an old movie at the academy awards wins best picture but nobody really talks about it today. For whatever reason it had hype, but it didn't have meat, not really.

Games only become classics once you replay it a few times and realize it stands the test of time
Sure you have a lot of shallow cinematic games and cash grab sequels now that won’t hold up to scrutiny, but there’s also plenty of games that are destined to become classics

"Classics" implies some sense of longevity, rather than purchasing Next Product. If you were only going to read "classic" books you'd never have to buy a new book in your life.

New Vegas

1) not enough time has passed for that
2) even if there was, most people on Yas Forums nowadays desperately pretend to (or worse, honestly) hate every game, because it's become cringe to admit fondness for anything.

Bunker or fish?

How is Dark Souls not a classic
It came out 10 years ago and people are still talking about it

Both Firewatch and Gone Home suffer from being message first, story second. While this does sound like it goes for every walking sim game, there's a clear difference in writing that's fairly easy to noticed after a while. Edith Finch is closer to you grandpa recounting weird family events, as you check out stuff in his room.

Bannerlord just came out

>Cringelord
>a classic

Can we just appreciate that we live in a time where games have become good again? I have been marathoning indie games, and most of them feel timeless and at least have a hint of innovation in them.

I think it's the lack of discovery. every game that strikes me as a classic is one I remember discovering, like an old secret. those of us that grew up with gaming have had all of our classics.

new classics are things like minecraft, or darksouls.

They are still here but most real classics are not among those big AAA games that everybody talk about at their release. Some of them are even flops.

Prey2017 and even Dishonored are classics that'll recommended alongside games like Deus Ex, System Shock and Thief in 10 years.

Also, even if the Yas Forumsocal minority will never accept it, The Witcher 3 is a modern classic.
Pathologic 2 will be a niche classic. Etc.

You’re just not looking at the right games
Pic related came out around the same time as those games you mentioned and it earns being called a classic much more

Attached: 6BC6E31C-C16C-4146-96AB-32268AD11804.jpg (685x999, 155.95K)

They don't want games to last long, user. Everything is 'as a service' or meant only to tide you over to the next release.

Games came out at a much faster pace in the 90s than now.

I can think of a few "modern" classics

>metal gear rising
>dark souls
>hotline Miami
>unironically skyim

Witcher 3
Dark Souls
Sekiro
Breath of the Wild
Xcom 2

The list goes on

Most games are made for people who dont play videogames these days. Just made to sell to the masses.

old = good new = bad

>>Detroit
>>Disco Elysium
I think these are the only that deserve to be discussed as to whether or not they're "classics" in the same way some older games are, and even then it's still heavily debatable
while I like hollow knight, it doesn't really do anything special, it just does what has been done thousands of times, pretty well. same goes for celeste
there's nothing noteworthy about sekiro or tropical freeze, they're not even exceptional in their genre

What you'll see in this thread aren't that there's no classics being made, it's that Yas Forumss eternally pesimistic mindset makes them think there's no classics because everything is shit and made for people unlike them, and therefor much less intelligent than them.

c'mon bro, there are classics

I can see bloodborne is a classic and I've never even played it, same goes for Dark Souls 1 whether you think it's too hard or not.

reddit

Becauase Dark Souls might as well be a 2012 game considering most of Yas Forums started with the PC version.

How much time needs to pass for a game to be considered a classic? 5? 10?

Yeah, because VA, 2deep4u cutscenes and realistic graphics wasn't as important as it is now.

op wasn't 12 years old when it launched

Rising is 7/10 at best.

Games today follow a business model rather than trying to be innovative or unique. Professional studios have to follow said model, indie developers lack the funds that the professional studios have or more important, the people alongside having personal matters get in the way of development. Your depression means jack shit, get that game out the door. You can't pull that shit under SEGA's deadlines for lack of a better example. Unless the industry stops trying to push a cinematic experience and poorly emulating the film industry, the amount of classics will continue to dwindle each year.

Basically, stop inflating your budget on graphics and cutscenes/voice acting.

sonic mania is the closest i think we've got in the past half-decade.

Half of posters here don't play games, another half is depressed as fuck and won't recognize good game in such state.

I'd say that Rain World, Pathologic 2, Prey and HK are as classic as it gets already. And all these games are pretty recent.

Sekiro’s difficultly, posture system, and bosses are all noteworthy
People will definitely remember it as one of the best action games this gen

The means of the masses to consume Vidya and the rate at which they are expected to do so has corrupted the industry to such a degree that even titles that could be argued as Classics in the making will likely not ferment enough within the minds of players for them to do so, as Players consume games within days, a week or two at the very best.
That, or they're multiplayer games, and multiplayer games are rarely worth being called classics. They're moreso phenomenons.

I think both are pretty forgettable and we won't be discussing them in the following years.