I have a.d.d. a.d.h.d. lol my family doctor when i was a kid just randomly told me when i was getting a check up a.d.d. kids are smarter than people without it. Yeah, generally speaking. I've known people with low intelligence and ADHD, but they were still out thinking people in their intelligence bracket. They were also earning lots of money despite being relatively dumb lol. It's when you have people with high intelligence and ADHD, that you get people like Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison.I'm not stuck in the past, I just don't have a severe case of ADD.
cybrcatter
Are people who have been gaming since the 90s stuck in the past?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
The problem is not games evolving, it's gaming in general that's becomming more mainstream, which in itself is fine, but honestly, when was the last time you had any sort of challenge in a video game? Demons Souls/Dark Souls? And before that?
Late 90s to early 2000s were the best years for gaming, on both consoles and the PC.
Second_HokageFun is subjective. There are people who find being bound and lashed fun, there are some people who don't find video games to be fun.
Or maybe it's the children who don't know any better? Your argument is absolutely null.Maybe the problem isn't the game, maybe its you stuck in 90s
Second_Hokage
[QUOTE="lawlessx"][QUOTE="Second_Hokage"]
I don't understand how you can give up on a video game series just because its evolving. Take Resident Evil for example; it used to be survival horror, now its third-person action and its FUN. How is this a negative? Are video games suppost to stay stuck in the past, never changing or evolving?
Maybe the problem isn't the game, maybe its you stuck in 90s.
Are you stuck in the past? or do you welcome change?
Midnightshade29
It was very possible to maintain the survival horror aspect of the series without changing it into a action 3rd person shooter. sadly since this generation of gamers are more interested in games that don't require much braincells.
And this!!! Bro-halo - cod gamers to the tee... you won't find any of them trying out figuring out a puzzle in a game like RE1/2/3 but you will see them co-op it up on a shooting spree in re5... there in lies the problem. imo. I miss the golden age of gaming! Why is it a problem that those gamers play what they like, the way they like? Do you people listen to yourselves? Why should your assessment of gaming be the "way" for others? It sounds like butthurt to me that they outnumber us, and gaming, being a business is going to go where the cash flow is.The old fps had nonlinear level design, keycards interesting weapons and enemies, the new oens are PEW PEW objective completed go to the next objective, you just move forward the corridor but in case you are an idiot, here is a indicator
The rpgs are "this weapon does more damage than this weapon uut not so fast, this armor has more hit points but that makes you move faster, these dialogue options are pretty much resulting into the same thing and your inventory is non existed.
The survival horror games are "pew pew pew, here is more ammo, pew pew pew, no puzzles just keep moving pew pew pew...BOO did i scare you? ofcoruse not, we wouldnt want the game to be scary now would we? pew pew pew"
BURN burn game developers burn. NOTHING has evovled only graphics and what we need to do is kill the value of graphics so devs will focus on gameplay, admitedly controls and balance is a bit better than in the past.
]Why is it a problem that those gamers play what they like, the way they like? Do you people listen to yourselves? Why should your assessment of gaming be the "way" for others? It sounds like butthurt to me that they outnumber us, and gaming, being a business is going to go where the cash flow is. cainetao11
oh but is really quite simple, becasue dead space 1.7 needs 5 million to survive, like we need another dead space, like dead space 3 is a horror game. You say go where the cashflow is, well the cashflow has made dead space and resident evil popular and know they take all the horror and all the survival to turn them into yet another shooter.
WHYY? because they get more money, i suggest you leave those series to the typical casual gamers since they betrayed us, you would think us buying these games would make sure they keep getting made, but no, "MORE MONEYS REQUIRED" Why? because they are greedy asses thats why.
NOTHING has evovleddakan45A lot has evolved, it doesn't even take an academic to shake a stick at the history of games to tell you that. Naturally it all varies, we're not playing Ultima IV and Battlezone still for a reason, and games like Robotron still hold up for another. Now you could argue that some things are regressive, and in a sense I'd say there's an argument to be had there - within reason.
[QUOTE="dakan45"]NOTHING has evovledskrat_01A lot has evolved, it doesn't even take an academic to shake a stick at the history of games to tell you that. Naturally it all varies, we're not playing Ultima IV and Battlezone still for a reason, and games like Robotron still hold up for another. Now you could argue that some things are regressive, and in a sense I'd say there's an argument to be had there - within reason. Read the rest of the post godamn it. Seriously wtf?
The old fps had nonlinear level design, keycards interesting weapons and enemies, the new oens are PEW PEW objective completed go to the next objective, you just move forward the corridor but in case you are an idiot, here is a indicator
The rpgs are "this weapon does more damage than this weapon uut not so fast, this armor has more hit points but that makes you move faster, these dialogue options are pretty much resulting into the same thing and your inventory is non existed.
The survival horror games are "pew pew pew, here is more ammo, pew pew pew, no puzzles just keep moving pew pew pew...BOO did i scare you? ofcoruse not, we wouldnt want the game to be scary now would we? pew pew pew"
BURN burn game developers burn. NOTHING has evovled only graphics and what we need to do is kill the value of graphics so devs will focus on gameplay, admitedly controls and balance is a bit better than in the past.
[QUOTE="cainetao11"]]Why is it a problem that those gamers play what they like, the way they like? Do you people listen to yourselves? Why should your assessment of gaming be the "way" for others? It sounds like butthurt to me that they outnumber us, and gaming, being a business is going to go where the cash flow is. dakan45
oh but is really quite simple, becasue dead space 1.7 needs 5 million to survive, like we need another dead space, like dead space 3 is a horror game. You say go where the cashflow is, well the cashflow has made dead space and resident evil popular and know they take all the horror and all the survival to turn them into yet another shooter.
WHYY? because they get more money, i suggest you leave those series to the typical casual gamers since they betrayed us, you would think us buying these games would make sure they keep getting made, but no, "MORE MONEYS REQUIRED" Why? because they are greedy asses thats why.
The saddest thing about that post is the part where you say "BURN burn game developers burn. NOTHING has evovled only graphics and what we need to do is kill the value of graphics". So the devs are to be punished for listening to what we the gaming populace has placed the highest value on? They need to burn, and we have to de-value graphics? But not accept that we are the ones who place the value on graphics first and foremost. How many graphics debates are done here? In a thread like this everyone will say "gameplay first" but argue about graphics more than anything. As for do we need another Dead Space? We dont need any of this!! This is a fvckin hobby/luxury. I used to collect comics, but there came a time when I just couldnt get into the collecting anymore. Sometimes we dont grow with what we once had a passion for. I think many cry babies here need to grasp this. If gaming isnt what you wish it was, either make games, or stop gaming. Why torture yourself? Do you folks like complaining about it? If not DO something about it.The saddest thing about that post is the part where you say "BURN burn game developers burn. NOTHING has evovled only graphics and what we need to do is kill the value of graphics". So the devs are to be punished for listening to what we the gaming populace has placed the highest value on? They need to burn, and we have to de-value graphics? But not accept that we are the ones who place the value on graphics first and foremost. How many graphics debates are done here? In a thread like this everyone will say "gameplay first" but argue about graphics more than anything. As for do we need another Dead Space? We dont need any of this!! This is a fvckin hobby/luxury. I used to collect comics, but there came a time when I just couldnt get into the collecting anymore. Sometimes we dont grow with what we once had a passion for. I think many cry babies here need to grasp this. If gaming isnt what you wish it was, either make games, or stop gaming. Why torture yourself? Do you folks like complaining about it? If not DO something about it.cainetao11back in 80s and 90s a bunch of kids made what today we call "the videogame industry" back the nwe didnt have crap, we had to make games with a bunch of colors and 8 bit sounds Somehow nowdays we dont have good stories or reach game worlds we dont have deep gamepaly, we dont have alot of variety and the artistis are getting paid much more than the programmers and we make games with graphics and no gameplay and ask insane and urneallistc sales to meet the demand. Are you proud of this? I am not. The new consoles scare most devs because of their far higher develpment costs. We need to devalue graphics and look to the past on how to make good games not graphical spectacles. A game developer does not get payed much, they are basicly underaid for the rest of their lives, if you join ,you join to make games, nowdays however every smug goes there just to make the next cod clone and score cash. All talent, dreams and ideas gone for millions of profit. it disgusts me.
[QUOTE="cainetao11"]The saddest thing about that post is the part where you say "BURN burn game developers burn. NOTHING has evovled only graphics and what we need to do is kill the value of graphics". So the devs are to be punished for listening to what we the gaming populace has placed the highest value on? They need to burn, and we have to de-value graphics? But not accept that we are the ones who place the value on graphics first and foremost. How many graphics debates are done here? In a thread like this everyone will say "gameplay first" but argue about graphics more than anything. As for do we need another Dead Space? We dont need any of this!! This is a fvckin hobby/luxury. I used to collect comics, but there came a time when I just couldnt get into the collecting anymore. Sometimes we dont grow with what we once had a passion for. I think many cry babies here need to grasp this. If gaming isnt what you wish it was, either make games, or stop gaming. Why torture yourself? Do you folks like complaining about it? If not DO something about it.dakan45back in 80s and 90s a bunch of kids made what today we call "the videogame industry" back the nwe didnt have crap, we had to make games with a bunch of colors and 8 bit sounds Somehow nowdays we dont have good stories or reach game worlds we dont have deep gamepaly, we dont have alot of variety and the artistis are getting paid much more than the programmers and we make games with graphics and no gameplay and ask insane and urneallistc sales to meet the demand. Are you proud of this? I am not. The new consoles scare most devs because of their far higher develpment costs. We need to devalue graphics and look to the past on how to make good games not graphical spectacles. A game developer does not get payed much, they are basicly underaid for the rest of their lives, if you join ,you join to make games, nowdays however every smug goes there just to make the next cod clone and score cash. All talent, dreams and ideas gone for millions of profit. it disgusts me.Tremendous. What are you doing to help change it? Complaining/crying on a gaming forum? Your just going rain out bitter crap because someone else is going to try and make a living and not stretch their creative talents as you deem fit? You guys act like they're all making bank out there. Ever read the story on 38 studios? There are many that work hard to get by, yet here where gaming is shell of its former glory, yet all the talentless devs are swimming in cash. Oh, where are the artists, my dear Shakespeare. Dude, stop gaming if its so bad for you. Why would you do this to yourself? People really dont want to be happy. They want to complain because it makes them feel like they know better when they cry. P.S. You asked me if I am proud of not having good stories, or deep gameplay. A) I dont, or couldnt make games, my pride is not invested in them B) I disagree. I am entertained more often than not with my gaming. I've been in it for 30 years, and am still having fun. When I sound like you I'll stop playing.
I don't understand how you can give up on a video game series just because its evolving. Take Resident Evil for example; it used to be survival horror, now its third-person action and its FUN. How is this a negative? Are video games suppost to stay stuck in the past, never changing or evolving?
Maybe the problem isn't the game, maybe its you stuck in 90s.
Are you stuck in the past? or do you welcome change?
Second_Hokage
You raise a valid question... however you are showing your age with this one. I've been gaming since the 80's, what does that make me? Consider that Since Resident Evil 2, RE5 is my favorite in the series... well Code Veronica I loved too, but I know if I had to play them all over again right now.... RE5 would get my vote for the best of the series.
Don't get me wrong... I want RE to go back to SURVIVAL HORROR.... and move away from Third Person Action Adventure/Shooter Hybrid that its becoming.... but not being able to side step in a game in this day and age is just bad design....
Read the rest of the post godamn it. Seriously wtf?dakan45I did, I'm isolating that point for brevity's sake. It's called evolution, you're saying there isn't any when you're stating an actually evolutionary process in your post. What the real intention in your post is that the 'evolutionary process' has been regressive. You've got to check your argument when you're making a point sire.
sit really shows how untalent devs get underdeserved profit and the talented ones diedakan45No, not at all. There's a plethora of amazing developers who would disagree with that strongly - I've heard Warren Spector in person state that with Looking Glass' death this meant that its developers were to spread out and influence elsewhere. He's right, and the same case goes for any developer existing; what matters is the market channels for developers to reach an audience. The fact that I can play a game like EYE right alongside Skyrim is amazing; and both these games have huge problems (or hell, that Wasteland 2 can be funded). 38 Studios didn't die because of commercial failure, it was utterly terrible mismanagement of money and the studio weighing so much in on their MMO - that Amalur would have had to have done phenomenal sales to even see a company return. For a new IP it was impossible, projections showed it - and state loans only worsened the blow. It's not a matter of 'no one supported it', because it sure as hell was. And those developers have gone onto other studios and spread their influence. Sure I'm not happy about their closure, but it's hardly the 'death of talent' - that's utterly absurd.
did, I'm isolating that point for brevity's sake. It's called evolution, you're saying there isn't any when you're stating an actually evolutionary process in your post. What the real intention in your post is that the 'evolutionary process' has been regressive. You've got to check your argument when you're making a point sire.skrat_01
you didnt isolated anything. Back then devs didnt have anything to make game, they did great stuf with what they got, 8bit sounds and few colors and pixels. They builded deep gameplay and story with em. Now they got great graphical engines and basicly make samey games with graphics and simplistic gameplay. Do you like how games are now identical and casual? funny its the opposite of your other posts.
How about a vampire rpg? no not enoug sales, how about? NO i told ya we need to make 5 millions to justify the development of dead space 1.7 so we take horror out of it.
Thats the game industry nowdays.
No, not at all. There's a plethora of amazing developers who would disagree with that strongly - I've heard Warren Spector in person state that with Looking Glass' death this meant that its developers were to spread out and influence elsewhere. He's right, and the same case goes for any developer existing; what matters is the market channels for developers to reach an audience. The fact that I can play a game like EYE right alongside Skyrim is amazing; and both these games have huge problems (or hell, that Wasteland 2 can be funded). 38 Studios didn't die because of commercial failure, it was utterly terrible mismanagement of money and the studio weighing so much in on their MMO - that Amalur would have had to have done phenomenal sales to even see a company return. For a new IP it was impossible, projections showed it - and state loans only worsened the blow. It's not a matter of 'no one supported it', because it sure as hell was. And those developers have gone onto other studios and spread their influence. Sure I'm not happy about their closure, but it's hardly the 'death of talent' - that's utterly absurd.skrat_01
EYE was made by a bunch of guys and it has more gameplay than most fps out there will ever achieve. Talent of few guys versus the entire industry of lack of talent , if onyl skyrim had half their ideas, if only. Kingdoms of amalaur a new ip launched close to other big well established franchise of the same thing each time their release a game and bothred to make a huge world and a big game instread of a smaller one to play it safe with the development costs. For that they got killed and everyoen bought skyrim instead. Sad what the industry has come ot, back in the 90s these guys would be respected but hype of sequeles reigns nowdays.
The fact that we gave so much money to wasteland 2 only with the hopes of making something as good as that proves that we care about such games and that those guys from the old days are legends, not the money grabbers outhere with graphics, by the way wasteland 2 is top down, not imrpessive graphic either. My point stands.
So if gaming turns into tablets, how is it dead? It may have changed into something I dont prefer, but it obviously isnt dead. See, friend thats the difference between us. I know its unlikely that I will game for my whole life. Change being the only constant in life, I try my best to flow with it. So how many games have you made? You obviously have some status to call Skyrim devs untalented. What do you really, factually know about game developing? What can you do with what you think you know? "I'm fighting for gaming by boycotting crap". Dude your doing what everyone in the world does. Your not buying what you arent interested in. Difference is most people arent bitterly spitting useless, opinionated, bile about it. A lot of people take real action. You seem passionate about this, supposed death sentence to gaming, why not do something proactive about it? Oh, I forgot.........your not buying what you dont like. How original.cainetao11
So you want gaming to goe to tablets and became casual facebook games?
" I know its unlikely that I will game for my whole life. Change being the only constant in life"
You obviously have more life than us :roll: go live it and leave us in peace, aparently we car eabout games more than you.
Skyrim developers are untalented, skyirim is an oblivion clone. So much talent on that and people keep buy their games. You dont need much to make a great game, but then again its easier to go with the money flow eh? put some graphics on that crap, which are hold back by consoles, put some hype on that crap, which is a bunch of cheesy lies, hype it and its all fine.
Take a loot at this, most horror games are dead, so we got people working on free games like slender and ccp contaimnent breach to bring that back.
They doing something, but since they dont sell their games and dont get the popularity they need, that wont change anything.
I did some mods in the past but i dont want to talk about it on gamepost with this acount. I strongly believe that AA+ games have gone to the gutter and yes i will boycott them and stand strong to that, i will support indies to make better games. What else can i do to fight the multimillion dollar corperations that make games like madden? Nothing. Back in the 90s when there was no really a game industry but a bunch of guys making games for others like them that took talent devoltion and dreams, now we got casual identical games selling out.
Really awesome.
you didnt isolated anything. Back then devs didnt have anything to make game, they did great stuf with what they got, 8bit sounds and few colors and pixels. They builded deep gameplay and story with em. Now they got great graphical engines and basicly make samey games with graphics and simplistic gameplay. Do you like how games are now identical and casual? funny its the opposite of your other posts.How about a vampire rpg? no not enoug sales, how about? NO i told ya we need to make 5 millions to justify the development of dead space 1.7 so we take horror out of it.
Thats the game industry nowdays.
dakan45
Sure I did, your point that there has been no evolution - the crux of your arugment. =S
'Back then' developers indeed had limited tools, and often had to make their own. Creativity on the contrary is only expanded by tools - more tools and better tools mean the facilitation of more creative endeavours and more development. Reaching more people, particularly developers has only been a good thing.
Games aren't identical and casual today, my posts state there is an evolution, and there is one. That's a reductive, jaded and outright wrong look at things. Games are diverse as they ever have been, and things have changed considerably over time. It's not outright worse by a huge margin, it's different - you can argue if there are faults and I agree, reductive hyperbolic statements however don't carry any worth.
Again you're being reductive. A commercial failure doesn't equate to demise. Looking Glass collapsed in on itself in the 90s - the 'golden age' of gaming. Does that mean things were 'dying' then? No.
You're looking only a triple A development - and in terms of financial success that part of the industryis in a rut, and thereis a problem there, which has beenwidely documented. That has to do withbudgeting andfinances of something that hashuge financial expectations and investment. Contrast that to the Amnesia games, Penumbra, and all the little indpendent horror games being produced.
As I said, things are very diverse, avery different landscape to evenseveral years ago let aloneover a decade. As I said before this marks anevolutionary process in the industry and games themselves.
You honestly proved your own point wrong with your response - when you remarked how good EYE and the likes of Wasteland 2 are. These are successful ventures what you regard as 'talent' doesn't go to die and can be finacially successful.EYE was made by a bunch of guys and it has more gameplay than most fps out there will ever achieve. Talent of few guys versus the entire industry of lack of talent , if onyl skyrim had half their ideas, if only. Kingdoms of amalaur a new ip launched close to other big well established franchise of the same thing each time their release a game and bothred to make a huge world and a big game instread of a smaller one to play it safe with the development costs. For that they got killed and everyoen bought skyrim instead. Sad what the industry has come ot, back in the 90s these guys would be respected but hype of sequeles reigns nowdays.
The fact that we gave so much money to wasteland 2 only with the hopes of making something as good as that proves that we care about such games and that those guys from the old days are legends, not the money grabbers outhere with graphics, by the way wasteland 2 is top down, not imrpessive graphic either. My point stands.
dakan45
Developers of EYE canco exist with a massive developer like Bethesda or Eidos andstill achieve success. That in itself is abrilliant thing and goes to show how diverse games are.Skyrim could have been something completely different- anything can - fact of the matter is Skyrimisn't trying to be somethingother than TES. As I said before, different financial expecatations, difference slices of adiverse industry.
In any market the IP withover a decade of history and recent titles isgoing to sell more then a new IP. Not to forget that Skyrim wasfar more heavily marketed and leveraged then Amular for these very reasons. Amaular wasn't 'killed' it didwell on the contrary, what 'killed' the studio as I aid, was thefinances and management of the studio. That'snot the fault of the market.
I agree with your sentiments about Wasteland 2 - yes it does show that the consumer cares, and it's damn wonderful; there's aproblem with triple Apublishing, and that's often common perceptions of what's financially successful.
Things are all diverse and different, examples like those above prove that games and games development is varies and is extremely diverse and damn well cosmopolitan.Things are damn good at the moment (not flawless by a longshot though - mark my words), and a ton better then they were six odd years ago. Now those were tough times.
There was a very profitable industry then with a damn large amount of reach from these bedroom developers and development houses such as Origin. There are similar parallels these days in both regards- bedroom developers today can thrive just like the 90s, and publishing houses (like Origin) who are strict and want to push and control their respective markets still exist today. What has happened is that gaming has grown a ton and subsequently evolved and become something much more diverse. It's no longer just computer enthusiasts and console players; which isn't to say games for those audience don't exist. I'll happily donate to Toady for more Dwarf Fortress updates, just like I'll check out what odd games Robert Yang might be conceiving - while Angry Birds hits the hundredth millionth of whatever download.Back in the 90s when there was no really a game industry but a bunch of guys making games for others like them that took talent devoltion and dreams, now we got casual identical games selling out.
dakan45
Really awesome.
Just the vocal minority who think that games were better back in the day.
Back in the day, games had half the content they do now despite them looking much worse. Games had to use gameplay mechanics that punished the player often and required a lot of repeating sections to beat something. Often there was a lot of backtracking too.
These kind of games had to be more difficult or you could beat them in no time flat. Games had to use frustrating mechanics due to the lack of tech as well. AI was terrible so they had to make it charge straight for you. Basics physics weren't really implemented, so movement and collision detection had to be fudged quite often. Menus were always big and bloated because there were really no such thing as dedicated UI programmers, just the programmers in charge of doing the game engine, art, and gameplay.
You have to remember, back in the 90s you didn't have teams of 100+ working on games. Usually 10-20 guys. So when you worked on games, you did it all. you did the engine programming, game programming, UI development, sound editing, graphical artwork, beta testing, level design... a bit of everything. There were some divisions of labor, but not to the extent we have today.
Multiplayer was also something played by people who understood PCs better, and in the 90s that wasn't the average person. Thus most of the multiplayer games were focused on extreme competition. It wasn't about just having fun, it was about getting better and getting to the top of the scoreboard. They didn't do unlocks, persistent leveling, or any of that crap that keeps people entertained now. They were much more simple affairs that required more skill to have fun. Consoles didn't even have multiplayer either, so every game was built with the hardcore PC gamers in mind.
Gaming was a totally different beast back then because of these limitations and the different audience. Console gamers had no way to play shooter of of any kind until the N64, and even there they were stupidly limited by the controller and the hardware. Consoles have really closed the gap on their capabilities. Maybe not in power, but in the ability to play games. Now the difference in gameplay between a console game and a PC game is much closer than it ever was.
Game development has changedas well. You have teams made up of specialized labor each doing a different task. A tech team working on just the engine, 3d and 2d artists, sound programmers, UI development, AI programming, level design, multiplayer level design... it's pretty specific. Game developers often have over 100 employees and contract out a lot more development to 3rd party studios. They also use much more licensed software so they do not have to develop every tool themselves. This makes games more robust today and more complete. They have guys who have figured out how to make menus not so robust, and to merge gameplay together to make a more stremalined expeirance. They can also pump out content extremely fast too.
Comparing the two is really comparing apples to oranges. People stuck in the past need to realize that the "glory" days are over. Developers no longer have to jump through the hurdles they did to make games before and games have become a much larger business that demands less risk. That, and most games have been done before. Like music, movies, and TV, it's all been done before. Truely unique and innovative games don't come around as much as they did in the 90s because in the 90s, pretty much everything made was brand new. Nobody had done it before.
The biggest difference is difficulty of games today. They are easier today. However as I said before, that's a product of their design. You don't need punishing difficulty to lengthen a game. You don't need constant trial and error to get through levels. In RPGs, we've moved away from the D&D style stats system because screwing up one character's build would require you to have to restart the whole thing. It's all older conventions when gameing was still maturing and a new audience was being created.
Holy crap Wasdie. Ever heard of a blog? :P
But seriously, anyone who thinks games were "better" in the 90s has no idea what they're talking about. Games are better now than they've ever been during that era. A lot of credit older games get is simply a result of nostalgia coloring their judgment.
I've ben gaming since the 80's, and trust me, i'm not stuck in the past.
I can say that I'm stuck in PS2/GC/GBA era. Man gaming was awesome back then. Even in today's systems (PS3/3DS/Wii U) I'm looking for news and hoping of some rerelease to the system.
@dakan45- you're copping out bro. You did some mods in the past. I try to be a positive supportive soldier. What else can you do? Go to school, get into the industry, build on the knowledge you must have since you've done some mods. You sound like a friend of mine in NY who has only done off, off b'way plays. He cries how am I gonna make it, bro? Work, scratch, claw to learn and never give up, that's how. But most people aren't passionate about changing what they dont like, they just want to complain about it. "Misery loves company", that's what it means. And when did I say I want gaming to go to tablets and casual facebook games? I clearly stated it would be a change I dont prefer, in other words I dont want it too. But if it does, I am real about the fact that I have no knowledge of how, or desire to, make games. So if that change comes, I will accept it and move on. You're the one that is holding court about fighting for gaming, but all your really doing is buying what you want, like the rest of us, but complaining about us doing the same.cainetao11
and your point is? I was thinking about gettign into gamedevelopment, but do it to work all the time, paid crap and not get to make good games but what they want me to make? screw it. If we do nothing none ofthis will change.
'Back then' developers indeed had limited tools, and often had to make their own. Creativity on the contrary is only expanded by tools - more tools and better tools mean the facilitation of more creative endeavours and more development. Reaching more people, particularly developers has only been a good thing.Games aren't identical and casual today, my posts state there is an evolution, and there is one. That's a reductive, jaded and outright wrong look at things. Games are diverse as they ever have been, and things have changed considerably over time. It's not outright worse by a huge margin, it's different - you can argue if there are faults and I agree, reductive hyperbolic statements however don't carry any worth.
Again you're being reductive. A commercial failure doesn't equate to demise. Looking Glass collapsed in on itself in the 90s - the 'golden age' of gaming. Does that mean things were 'dying' then? No.
You're looking only a triple A development - and in terms of financial success that part of the industryis in a rut, and thereis a problem there, which has beenwidely documented. That has to do withbudgeting andfinances of something that hashuge financial expectations and investment. Contrast that to the Amnesia games, Penumbra, and all the little indpendent horror games being produced.
As I said, things are very diverse, avery different landscape to evenseveral years ago let aloneover a decade. As I said before this marks anevolutionary process in the industry and games themselves.skrat_01
"Creativity on the contrary is only expanded by tools" where?
"Games aren't identical and casual today, my posts state there is an evolution," where?
"Again you're being reductive. A commercial failure doesn't equate to demise. Looking Glass collapsed in on itself in the 90s - the 'golden age' of gaming. Does that mean things were 'dying' then? No. "
so did interplay trying to get in the console market. Contrary to populat belief pc gaming has far more sales than in its goldern days but ofcourse "MORE MONEY REQUIRED" and they go to consoles.
" You're looking only a triple A development - and in terms of financial success that part of the industryis in a rut, and thereis a problem there, which has beenwidely documented. That has to do withbudgeting andfinances of something that hashuge financial expectations and investment. Contrast that to the Amnesia games, Penumbra, and all the little indpendent horror games being produced."
no i said that AA+ need insane profits and they all choose to play it safe, on indie however you can do more things. Lets face it we will never see something like blood, system shock anymore because publishers want more easy to sell identical simplistic unimaginative games.
"You honestly proved your own point wrong with your response - when you remarked how good EYE and the likes of Wasteland 2 are."
what was my point? Last time i checked it was that games nodways are the same thing because the big publishers want more money. Both eye and wasteland 2 were made possible by people who either got rejected by the big publishers of worked alone. So HOW THE HELL did i prove my point wrong?
"still achieve success"
if it wasnt for us wasteland 2 would never exist. If it wasnt for those french guys no one would make a game like EYE so no, they cant exist unless someone who doesnt think liek the big devs make them.
"Skyrimisn't trying to be somethingother than TES".
More like a dumbed down version of it with more action and style rather rpg. Thankfullly they dont lock out modding like most devs outhere.
"Not to forget that Skyrim wasfar more heavily marketed and leveraged then Amular for these very reasons. Amaular wasn't 'killed' it didwell on the contrary, what 'killed' the studio as I aid, was thefinances and management of the studio. That'snot the fault of the market."
The market buys the same things all over and amalaur needed to hit 3 million, i doubt that was BS mostly becasue the game was huge, so these guys sat there and made a huge experiacne and that killed them, they didnt play it safe like most devs outhere. They didnt lower their expectasions to make somethign simplier and avoid a failure. This is how games were made in the 90s with talent and dreams , now, tis all a safe bet and a clauster mes on failure.
"Things are all diverse and different, examples like those above prove that games and games development is varies and is extremely diverse and damn well cosmopolitan"
:) :D no, just no, no examples, games nowdays are very much the same thing, cod, bf, homefront,crysis, moh, but hey darkness 2 and syndicate...no they are pretty linear and scripted, how about gotham city impostors? That dos something. So resident evil is now an action game and i cant fo the life of me figure out which is dead space 3 and which is lost planet 3, well done on that one. So no i dissagree, games are a sludge of identical experiances, comapred to the 90s they are 100% the same thign and thats sad.
Back then, in the 90s they didnt even need publishing ,just shipped the game themselfs. Now we have a videogame industry and publishing and giving up the rights is needed to make your damn game. However it is most certainly not more diverse. It is more or less the same kinda games, that is exactly why people pick games and say "oh this game is borderlands+ cod +assasin creed" Because of how much alike the games are. I think steam and indie devs do the job nicely, there is our game, interested? They dont hype the crap out of it to sell you another samey game.
Holy crap Wasdie. Ever heard of a blog? :P
But seriously, anyone who thinks games were "better" in the 90s has no idea what they're talking about. Games are better now than they've ever been during that era. A lot of credit older games get is simply a result of nostalgia coloring their judgment.
The_Game21x
Look at Diablo 2 VS Diablo 3
Diablo 2: a better game, which the community as a whole would agree on
But it has far worse graphics, punishing mechanics, character builds that can be broken.
We've gained something in the past 10 years: physics, graphics, easy multiplayer
We've lost something in the past 10 years: challenge, depth and breadth or mechanics
I submit to you that 'nostalgia' may cloak how bad the graphics / physics were, but there is a very real underbelly of complaint against modern mechanic neutering.
I can say that I'm stuck in PS2/GC/GBA era. Man gaming was awesome back then. Even in today's systems (PS3/3DS/Wii U) I'm looking for news and hoping of some rerelease to the system.
whiskeystrike
Basically the newest wave of games in the past 8 or so years have been sequal upon sequal.
With one key difference between iterations: simplication
[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]
Holy crap Wasdie. Ever heard of a blog? :P
But seriously, anyone who thinks games were "better" in the 90s has no idea what they're talking about. Games are better now than they've ever been during that era. A lot of credit older games get is simply a result of nostalgia coloring their judgment.
haberman13
Look at Diablo 2 VS Diablo 3
Diablo 2: a better game, which the community as a whole would agree on
But it has far worse graphics, punishing mechanics, character builds that can be broken.
We've gained something in the past 10 years: physics, graphics, easy multiplayer
We've lost something in the past 10 years: challenge, depth and breadth or mechanics
I submit to you that 'nostalgia' may cloak how bad the graphics / physics were, but there is a very real underbelly of complaint against modern mechanic neutering.
Of course there are exceptions to my statement. I guess I should've clarified that I was speaking in more general terms.
[QUOTE="haberman13"]
[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]
Holy crap Wasdie. Ever heard of a blog? :P
But seriously, anyone who thinks games were "better" in the 90s has no idea what they're talking about. Games are better now than they've ever been during that era. A lot of credit older games get is simply a result of nostalgia coloring their judgment.
The_Game21x
Look at Diablo 2 VS Diablo 3
Diablo 2: a better game, which the community as a whole would agree on
But it has far worse graphics, punishing mechanics, character builds that can be broken.
We've gained something in the past 10 years: physics, graphics, easy multiplayer
We've lost something in the past 10 years: challenge, depth and breadth or mechanics
I submit to you that 'nostalgia' may cloak how bad the graphics / physics were, but there is a very real underbelly of complaint against modern mechanic neutering.
Of course there are exceptions to my statement. I guess I should've clarified that I was speaking in more general terms.
And I agree with you to an extent. I just think the water is a little muddier than simple 'nostalgia'. There are REAL reasons that games were better and worse at the same time, today, and yesteryear.
Hopefully the next generation combines the attributes of both... deep games with good phsyics / graphics.
I'd rather be stuck in the 90s then a gen riddled with shooters, generic CoD clones, emphasis on action, blood, gore and cinamatics,sequelitus, casualization(aka dumbification of games), consumor milkage and most of all a big F U to variety. This generation of games has had it's share of gems here and there but lets face it, it's created some very negative aspects that the games industry would just be far better without.
I'm having as much fun now as before back in the 80's and 90's. The only thing that's changed is whereas before, my focus was flight sims, adventure, and strategy games (as well as (8/16-bit gaming on consoles). Now, I have most of those still plus FPS and sports. My number of platformers dropped big time. All I have is SMG2 on the Wii. But, most genres (including flight sims) survived to today.
A lot of people seem to be. They whine when games change and they whine when they don't (RE and Cod for expamle) and just seem so damn jaded. It's a great hobby and I was playing since I was 3 years old. I don't like the way the industry is going with freenium where you only get the best experience if you continuely pay, but then again that's just me. I hope there is never only digital distribution also, I love my boxed games and will always choose them. In any case some people can never take off their nostaglic glasses and complain about everything, but so many gamers seem self-entitled. It's a shame that they just can't enjoy a product and have fun.
how i envy you, wish i did too, i got tired of reinstalling sss2 and deus ex nad half life, isntead i got nearly every oldschool fps from gog.I'm having as much fun now as before back in the 80's and 90's. The only thing that's changed is whereas before, my focus was flight sims, adventure, and strategy games (as well as (8/16-bit gaming on consoles). Now, I have most of those still plus FPS and sports. My number of platformers dropped big time. All I have is SMG2 on the Wii. But, most genres (including flight sims) survived to today.
jun_aka_pekto
Jees. You think it is weird if people who grew up with survival horror games aren't happy with the popular few in the genre becoming action shooters?
Some people enjoy survival horror more than action shooters.
[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]Again, see above. I have ADHD.I'm not stuck in the past, I just don't have a severe case of ADD.
FrozenLiquid
Not gonna claim to be insulted, but you non-ADHDers are massively ignorant.
It's not that we are stuck in the past, it's just that we have more experience with games and are a little frustrated when we see franchises make drastic changes for the worse. Why not just make a new franchise? Because the industry is greedy and loves to ride on big names.Mcspanky37Well yeah, exactly. Franchises go downhill, it happens after they've been around 10, 15, 20 years! There's usually new games and franchises to fill the gaps though.
The issue is that we already got shooters, why make MOAR shooters?Jees. You think it is weird if people who grew up with survival horror games aren't happy with the popular few in the genre becoming action shooters?
KungfuKitten
Some people enjoy survival horror more than action shooters.
The old school games had new ip's left and right also I was able to get a decent challenge plus games lasted longer than a couple hours.
[QUOTE="Mcspanky37"]It's not that we are stuck in the past, it's just that we have more experience with games and are a little frustrated when we see franchises make drastic changes for the worse. Why not just make a new franchise? Because the industry is greedy and loves to ride on big names.locopathoWell yeah, exactly. Franchises go downhill, it happens after they've been around 10, 15, 20 years! There's usually new games and franchises to fill the gaps though. You'd think so, but that has not been the case for all genres.
Fortunately more accessible distribution models are giving a leg up to indie developers. As for funding, I think Kickstarter will turn out to be one of the best things to happen to vidya in a long time.
you mean when we got decent full games which were actually innovative instead of cloning more succesful ones and when every single company didn't try to pull every single bad business practice on the book on people?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment