1) This is still not enough for an entire industry toonly depend on sales via the internet. Right now Console makers are trying to convince most of their gamers to play online and there are still millions that don't, can't or won't. This is still money that they would lose until the VAST majority of gaming regions have super faster internet speeds with no caps which so far is not the trend. Cable and Fios internet is something that has been improving SLOWLY and with the monopoly they have their is little chance of this speeding up.

2) Gamers currently have that ability, it's called buying a console and a handheld and the best part is games are made with that in mind. Not every console game is something that can be played well or comfortably on the go and visa versa. When you buy a handheld and it's games you get a video game device that is made with pick up and play in mind. Could I enjoy playing MGS4 or Uncharted on the go. Not really, every button counts for those games and a small screen is not ideal. But mario, puzzle games, mini games etc. are games that translate well on a handheld.

As for the money aspect of it, MS, Sony, Nintendo and every other dev makes the majority of their profit on software sales and excluding people who don't wanna pay for their games online with a credit card or prepaid card or don't have a stable internet connection is gonna hurt that profit which is not a sound business model. Again the entire internet infrastructure would have to VASTLY change and improve and give consumers some incentive aside from saving us a trip to the store to get us to buy games online exclusively and play even single player games with internet connectivity being a factor.

3) Everyone is investing in a variety of ways for distributing goods but that doesn't mean it would replace the old way of doing things. You can download movies but DVDs and Blu rays are still preferred. You can download music but people still buy CDs. Just because companies invest in a new way of doing things does not mean consumers will have to choose the new way or nothing.

4) Onlive demonstrates that gaming is not ready for cloud gaming and that consumers don't care for cloud gaming. Onlive having their single player games being affected by online connectivity is a step backwards, not to mention many games look worse then the console counter part. It also has a small library of old games, no exclusives and you don't really own the games. These cons are reflected by consumers not touching Onlive, except for you of course.

The Angry Video Game nerd tries to be funny by overreacting and finding shovelware games to get some hits, he's not an accurate representation of old video game design. Just as Calvin Tucker's Redneck Jamboree is not an accurate representation of current generation games.

Also, none here is calling those games complicated if you looked at other posts, maybe the TC is but I'm only calling old PC games complicated.

Yangire

Well then it seems like we agree. My experience with old PC games is very limited so I never intended my comment to exceed anything above console gaming. My comment was directed towards the TC and a few other posters that look fondly on the yester year games through rose colored glasses.

What do you mean by broken, cheap enemies, and poor level/game design? Also, enemies one hit killing you, no to little lives, levels that are created to kill you, and enemies that are actually difficult make the game hard, spin it however you like but it makes the game hard.

Anyways we are talking about old video games complexity, not difficulty.

Yangire

Watch any Angry Nerd episode. I am talking about the NES, SNES and Genesis era. It's the one most people look fondly of during their Nostalgic moments until they pick up an old Genesis game and run out of continues before beating the game. Back then devs made games with the old Arcade mentality in mind which was to make it pretty much impossible to avoid getting hit by certain enemies and in some case even losing a life. The way to get around this was to memorize certain patterns and just get to these Bosses with as much lives and as many continues as possible and then just muddle through the cheapness.

I am not spinning it that's just how it was and I wouldn't label a game more "complicated" because they have cheap enemies and poor level design that make it impossible for me to know what to do or where to go next. That's just poor dev choices fluffing up the difficulty. With Passwords which were prevalent back then due to such rampant cheap games when you plugged in the unlimited lives/continues code you ended up beating the same game in maybe a couple hours. That to me does not equal complicated.

As I also posted before, games have more dimensions now that 3D is pretty much standard for any game so it's impossible to say that on a technical level games are simpler because 3Dimensions, 8 buttons, d pads, two analog sticks, better physics, HD graphics, better sound, etc. all say otherwise and all have improved every gen.

Now some of our single player campaigns have been dumbed down mainly because some games spread their focus to add multiplayer but overall I wouldn't say the previous gens games are more compicated. It varies game by game.

Im pretty sure we could save our games aswell back then *checks UFo: Defence* yep we could. The difference was that enemies were generally harder to overcome in most genres, and the resources at the players disposal were more limited, as in none regenerating lifes, none unlimited lifes and saves. Far better puzzle elements (Tak a good long look at the RE sereis to get a grasp of this).

The best pointer to what I said would be a game like Bioshock Contra SS2. Did you ever feel a sence of acomplechment in Bioshock? ofcourse not, you couldnt die, and everything was so streamlined that the only navigation the player ever had to do would be a "go left, or go right" unlike the scruffing through the spaceship in SS2 to find what you needed to stay alive, and keep equipment intact. I prefer SS2 by a large margin, because it is up to the player to stay alive, in a game world, that is relentless (but not unfair).

Most games these days go out of thier way not to let the player die, as in you really have to try to die. In Syndicate you could mess up a mission, and itd be tough luck, you had to proceed the game with the failure,meaning the rest of the game would be potentially harder, now you are not given the choice, and yes youcould saveat the start of each mission, if you were vain enough to complete each and everyone of them.

DMC was harder then GoW by a long margin, altho most dont consider them the same genre. I do not Consider DMC broken either you know.

RPGs in general is mindless easy now, play FO2 and Fo3, and tell me where it is easiest to get high damage weapons and ammo, (without using a guide, thank you).

Nope, back in the '90 the Devs gave room for failure, and not alot of handholding, Remember when a teammate could die in a teambased RPG? yeah now they wake up after getting riddled with bullets, as if nothing happened. Plain and simple, the games were not broken back then, most of those games I still play (and often buy) I am still to see a broken game, if it is duable the game is not broken, if the game goes out of its way to make sure you suceed, it IS broken.

The thing that is different, is that Devs make games nearly impossible to lose at now.

Maddie_Larkin

Sounds like we are talking about TWO different "Back thens". I was referring to the NES, SNES and Genesis era. That's back then for me. Save states were not completely standard and you had to beat the game in one play through if you could save all your lives before fighting cheap Bosses that are impossible to beat without dying.

You seem to be talking about PS1/PS2 days. And to me honestly aside from more emphasis on multiplayer now I don't see a HUGE difference between then and now. I think you might be harping on certain games and certain franchises. Yes some franchises became more accessible over time in their sequels but I still don't see all this "holding your hand" people complain about. Tutorial levels were around back then just like they are now. I think you have to stop generalizing and just accept that difficulty and challenges should be judged on a game by game basis and every gen. had easy shallow games and more difficult games. Just because DMC, Tomb Raider and Resident Evil got easier and more casual over time does not mean it reflects all the quality of all the games for those gens.

MGS4 for one was a lot more complicated then MGS1.

[QUOTE="Javy03"] The Challenges your referring to from the 90s were cheap enemies, broken games, lack or resources for walkthroughs and limited lives/continues. Now because we can stop on level 8 and pick it up from there the next day games FEEL easier but the reality was back then games were short and you were expected to beat them in one sit down.Yangire

Games don't "feel" easier, they are easier, besides broken games all of those things are design choices that make games harder.

Ill take the bait ^^

The reasons I dislike the "streamlining" of games is because they lose all challange. I loved games back in the '90 You felt a feeling of achivement when you after 30 mins of running your head into a wall, figured out the subtle nuances of a game, youfelt a "Heureka" moment, as you grasped the world around you, learned theunwritten rules of the game. It was awesome. Alot of games nowadays, I dont even play half though because they wont give me a challange, and if they dogive as a "challange"is boiled down to a halfarsed puzzle a 2 year old could figure out.

The key here is that there are two kinds of gamers split on thistopic. Those whowants to feelempowered (through the game and the actions in it) And those who wants a challange (those who wants tofeel like they accompliched something when they finished a game, and wants the satisfaction of going headlong into impossible odds, and figure out a way to beat those odds, almost like chess)

There are a whole lot of games In general this gen I just look at, or try out, and think "If I wanted a cinematic effortless thing to do, id watch a movie"

So clearly I belong to the 2nd of those groups. I do notthink less of the first group, since it is also a very validreason to play games, It is just not my cup of tea.

Ideally gaming will be split intointo those two groups,which it allready kind of is, you hear the word "mainstream"get thrown around alot in these forums, aswell as Hardcore. They are the users own attempt to seperate those two groups.

All this is well and good, unless we take the 3rd group in account: The group who plays to have fun.

Aw snap, now it messed up the grouping I made ^^

Even the games themselvers were less complicated back then, which isn't a good thing or a bad thing but just reality. Here let me break it down for you:

We used to game with these many buttons:

Now because our games are more advanced we have this many:

I wouldn't say that. Back when I started gaming on the NES all I had to do was hook up my system to my TV, put the cartridge in and BAM..I was gaming. My console came with a game and the accessory gun. All I had to do to keep gaming was buy more games at the store with real money.

Now video game consoles are compatible with different TVs differently, if you want the best video quality you need to buy a certain TV and certain cables. Many games are made with online play in mind so unless you wanna miss out on most top games you have to hook up your console to an online source as well and some games are Downloadable only so you have to either buy it with a credit card on your console using a points system on XBL and Wii or buy games with a minimum amount of 5 dollars on PSN or buy a prepaid card to get the content. And now both HD consoles are coming out with add on's.

I don't think gaming is less complicated now but it definately gives the gamer more of everything if your willing invest the time and money.

Leon and Dante are very typical standard cocky protagonists. They pass themselves off as not caring and bad ass but always make the same kinda of choices as the goody-two-shoes hero. They are the softcore version of an anti-hero.

This is a very stereotypical action hero character and neither one can claim ownership to their personality.

AA games are not hard to come by so not really something that I get all excited about. It seems to be the easy go to score and games like Uncharted, ME1 and HS get lumped in with a bunch of other crappy shallow AA games because AA scores seem to be the norm. I am not saying that AA games can't be better then AAA games, but I am saying that the AA category is so over used and watered down that I don't respect it as a score.

AAA games are hard to come by and that's what I would brag about, otherwise just say you enjoy what you enjoy and move on, don't try to pan off your system as superior because you selective pick 8.5 while ignoring all the multiplats it gets left out of and AAA titles.