We've all got this great nostalgia rich past of crappy graphics C64 games that set your kiddie imagination on fire, point-and-click adventures that you fondly remember, and if you play again you realize a lot of them haven't aged a bit... then the AGS community, of like-minded people who miss those days, relive them, talk about them, and maybe (like binky and I) pretend they're making games in them.
But what about your young kid of today, that bypassed all that? What have they got to feel nostalgic about in ten years time?
Are we going to see a GTACS (Grand-Theft-Auto-Clone Studio) where people all band together and make freeware games involving nicking cars? What cars are you going to have in yours? Can you smash people's heads in with bricks? No? Rubbish...
Or howabout a FPSS? How rubbishis that? "I've decided to go with the...Doom 3 interface... erm that's WSAD and mouse button to fire. Only mine is set in... wild west! What weapons are you going to have in YOUR game? I thought I'd have a shot-gun. Whoopie!
How lame. :-\ Any youngsters want to air their fury at the lack of nostalgic potential in anything that has come out since the Playstation 1?
The generation of which I am part of only in body (ie. in my mind I'm an 80s'o'phile) is going to be badly lacking culture in years to come.
I've noticed a very sad distinction as well. Whenever I talk to people up to and including the age of 17 I find them to be very dull, mindless, MTV watching people who yell a lot.
Go one year higher, and you find intelligent people who quote Douglas Adams in everyday life and watch Monty Python's Flying Circus.
I'm just glad that I can appreciate the nostalgia of things that went before. I know a lot of people who wouldn't touch anything pre-ps2. I know people who didn't know that games ever weren't 3D. Its a rather depressing state of affairs.
Quote from: Mr Flibble on Tue 08/08/2006 17:30:58Go one year higher, and you find intelligent people who quote Douglas Adams in everyday life
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly past." - Douglas Adams, on deadlines
:=
And I love the older consoles! PS2 may have been my first, but when I was a kid I always wanted a SNES (in fact, we got one once, but didn't have the right cable to connect it to our T.V., so my mom sold it...but I kept the games in hope that I would be able to play them...I never was able...until...emulation of games you own is legal right? :P)
Also, you can't escape the fact that when we were kids, computers came with manuals with how to poke around with them and do cool things. Like program the sound chip, or poke the joystick etc. So the upshot of it all was, you could play a game and think "I wonder how they made that", pick up your manual, type a few of the examples in and the next thing you know, you're writing (admittedly crap) games.
It's no coincidence that there are an awful lot of very talented (games) programmers around now who started like this.
Nowadays, you buy a PC and it's unlikely to come with Visual Studio pre-installed. Or worse, you've got a PS2 which doesn't even have a keyboard. So of course, you've got the power to make games (there are things like AGS about after all), but it's hardly training you to become a games programmer (unless you write plugins and are already a programmer).
So the route into coding now seems to be University which strikes me as a much more sterile way of learning than poking around with a C64 and making it do whizzy things.
Quote from: CaptainBinky on Tue 08/08/2006 17:43:29So the route into coding now seems to be University which strikes me as a much more sterile way of learning than poking around with a C64 and making it do whizzy things.
I like to poke around with CJ and make him do whizzy things. And of course the engine itself.
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 08/08/2006 17:42:22
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly past." - Douglas Adams, on deadlines
Hehe I love the way the tagline of that quote stipulates what Douggie was actually talking about in that quote..
"Spanners! He's talking about spanners, I think!... What, no, he's talking about deadlines! " :D
QuoteGo one year higher, and you find intelligent people who quote Douglas Adams in everyday life and watch Monty Python's Flying Circus.
As if this is the epitome of culture!
When you get to my age, you quote Proust in everyday life and watch Newsnight
Quote from: Helm on Tue 08/08/2006 17:48:50
As if this is the epitome of culture!
I'm surrounded by people who say "lol" when they aren't laughing, think Jackass is amusing, and have read fewer books than I've written sonnets.... you've got to aim for culture in small steps.
I think the main issue facing the game industry is that they've come to rely on 3D to provide all the depth for a game. I mean wow, it's 3D! Isn't that deep? 3D explosions, 3D piles of gore flying in realtime and sticking to things. ISN'T THAT ENOUGH? The answer for most of the new generation, sadly, is yes. Look at film. Is Hollywood any different, really? Bigger explosions, now in 100% CGI so it looks fake but more massive and cheaper than a real explosion. These industries tend to latch onto new technology wholeheartedly while abandoning methods that, while old, tend to be better (or worth including). Take animatronics, a fantastic medium for creating often lifelike creations--all but abandoned with the advent of CGI's glossy and obviously fake looking creations (you could compare this to rotoscoping I suppose). I think that both industries should see the merits of what came before rather than abandon them for the next new thing, but it's not going to happen.
I think it's quite easy to blame the "industry", but it's the game buying market (i.e. us) that's as much to blame. Were it not for the incessant lapping up of sequels, gore, and polygons over gameplay then maybe there'd be a bit more range to choose from. Fact of the matter is the majority of people are woo'd by whizzy graphics and some techy specs.
The only reasurring thing to me is the success of the DS over the PSP. Of course, you could put this all down to price-point, and if that is the case then I'd be disappointed. I'd like to think it was because the games were more interesting and varied. Go Wii!
I feel relieved that I am not the only one with these thoughts.
How terribly bad of the next-decade generation from ours to have shifted into loving things that lack content or meaning. Everything has become about selling the wrapping and selling it FAST.
You cannot ignore the fact that sadly this world runs on money, and what sells the most, is what defines the market.
Of course you know as well as I do, that these things sell well because they are made fast and they are incredibly well promoted. You cannot promote easily to someone the lasting memory of something exceptional, but you can sell something that promises excitement, danger, violence, domination, sensuality, pleasure and fake self-esteem for only 29.99.
The focus of the market has become the need to address the real life desires of teens, more than anything else. Games have slowly become strange substitutes of real life for most of these kids, especially focused on creating the illusion of building self-esteem.
I have been a gamer since.. forever and as much as love the process of playing a good game, I cannot help but wonder what will happen to this next generation that lives 24/7 inside a FPS, MMORPG or On-line Strategy game.
Edit: Spelling.
When I was still making my AGS game(That's in limbo), I let my cousin's nine year old daughter play the game made so far.
She loved it.
So there is hope for these games yet for the next generation, but we have to do the exposing ourselves!
/me skims over that last post.
Expose yourself to nine year olds. Got it.
I played my first arcade game (Galaxian) when I was six.
And look at me now!
...
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Tue 08/08/2006 17:46:30
I like to poke around with CJ and make him do whizzy things.
Hey, that's AGA's job!
Read my post more carefully, Binky. I think it was clear in indicating that the games of today are what kids of today are willing to play. However, (and this is important), consumer likes do not guide the market as much as some people seem to think. There is this constant effort by companies to steer people towards a fad (this has been going on since at least the existence of television). They may be aware of what you like, but frankly they'd rather you liked this instead. Some companies of course cater to what is currently 'popular'. By this I mean trends they perceive to be occurring, whether real or not, and in their way try to egg them on and take advantage. The trend after the Doom explosion was of course FPS's. One was successful so why not two? Three? Five hundred? The market is so saturated with 3D games with 1D stories now that some people just don't know what else there is. People my age (the very old) know games from a time when the focus wasn't graphics but gameplay and the kind of depth only a well-conceived game can provide. This is not largely what this generation has been exposed to, however, and many only see what they are exposed to by popular opinion, commercials, and peers. So yes, certainly, consumers have a stake in what is produced, but companies often spot perceived trends and saturate the market, overplaying their hands and steering consumers toward what is more profitable to the company.
I think you're right that advertising and marketing is almost as important as the actual quality of the games - actually this is probably the case with most products and commodities today. Most developers are taking only small steps, providing 90% recognition and 10% innovation or unique sales points with every new game published. Anything else is considered too risky. In a way this is a self-perpetuating process, since in order to get into the business these days, you must prove that you absolutely love the current state of computer games and are willing to mindlessly mimic their style or humbly elaborate on it. And while doing it, you must convince everyody that you're actually being highly innovative and introducing the next big thing. But you're also right that trends do shift occassionally, so that suddenly everybody is mimicking a new style or genre, like 3d, FPS or physics-based gameplay. It's kind of ridiculous witnessing the whole industry turning around and chasing the latest buzz-words like that, but I guess it's commercial reality. Still, whatever the technology or state of the media, it can be used skillfully or less so. And still, even in the industry, miracles occasionally happen. What matters is what people really get from your game, and luckily all people aren't as stupid as some people in the industry portray them or would like them to be. Not in my experience, at least.
I would like to know what percentage of the games from the past are less about money/graphics and more about making an enjoyable game, in your opinion progz. I mean thousands and thousands of games came out in the 80s and 90s and thousands and thousands come out now, what's the difference? Are there amazing games from the 80s? Yessir! 90s? You got it! 2000's? Sure thing! Are there shit derivative games that mean little to anyone from all these eras? Yes. So what's the difference? What has changed?
Games being all about graphics isn't a new developement because of 3d models. Look at ads for the commodore 64 over the Atari. Look at boxes to Sierra games calling the games 3d as if it ment something. This isn't new and little has changed. Look at the growth of game graphics. People were trying to make graphics better, not because they thought "This'd be neat! Let's develop better graphics because people will like looking at them!" it was "Let's have better graphics and make our competitor's software look like shit.
Also:
" Take animatronics, a fantastic medium for creating often lifelike creations--all but abandoned with the advent of CGI's glossy and obviously fake looking creations (you could compare this to rotoscoping I suppose). Ã, "
This is a very awkward statement. You say that animatronics creates "often lifelike creations." Often? So it doesn't always look lifelike? That reminds me an awful lot of current CGI. Hmmmmm. Again, maybe things haven't changed at all.
The big differences are that current day graphics are impossible to beat (technologically, not artistically) from your garage studio - big studios just hire more people -Ã, and that there are more games published every year than earlier on, and a still smaller percentage of those claim a still larger percentage of the profit. So yes, offbeat projects that can really compete are increasingly rare.
Besides, we were all excited by the tech advances in graphics untill around 1996, but in my opinion other areas are seriously lacking behind graphics now. The more photo-realistic graphics become, the more obvious the need of more sophisticated AI and player interaction - games today are like watching badly directed movies with near-retarded or zombie actors (at least outside of the cutscenes). Maybe that's what is meant by graphics taking focus from gameplay and other important factorsÃ, ???
And games of yesterday had retarded AI that generally either walked back and forth or walked towards you. That's what they could do at the time so that is what we got. AI has gotten much better since 1988 and to not recognize that is a disservice. Is AI perfect? No but it puts up a hell of a fight in a vast majority of games from Quake 3 to Chess [which people usually forget in terms of AI advances].
You say the better graphics made it obvious we need better AI, does that mean when graphics were crappy you ignored the lack of good AI?
Also, because graphics are good and it's harder for a dude in his basement to equal a big studio full of 100 or so people isn't much of an arguement that I can see. At one point people were able to make games in their basement and sell them and they looked just the same as "professional" games, now depending on what style of game they shoot for, they can't. There are games for free on the internet that look better than 50% of all the GBA games I have seen. It's all in the comparison.
Quote from: Mr Flibble on Tue 08/08/2006 17:30:58
I've noticed a very sad distinction as well. Whenever I talk to people up to and including the age of 17 I find them to be very dull, mindless, MTV watching people who yell a lot.
I'm seventeen, play more classic point 'n click adventure games than I do modern games, can't stand MTV, and hate people who yell. So we're not all that way. ;)
I'm 13 and these games give me the nostalgic feeling of Hugo games
Quote from: MrColossalYou say the better graphics made it obvious we need better AI, does that mean when graphics were crappy you ignored the lack of good AI?
Yes, the closer the games get to the graphical qualities of movies, the more human-like behaviour and interaction we expect from the npcs/actors. It's really disappointing when a photorealistic game character cycles through auto-replies and suddenly seems more fake than if it had been a crappily animated 3-color sprite.
QuoteI mean thousands and thousands of games came out in the 80s and 90s and thousands and thousands come out now, what's the difference? Are there amazing games from the 80s? Yessir! 90s? You got it! 2000's? Sure thing! Are there shit derivative games that mean little to anyone from all these eras? Yes. So what's the difference? What has changed?
Well, 'I' have changed. I am not a teen anymore and I would like the game industry to be able to address my age-group with a good game.
During those years, I was able to play great games, built lasting memories and define a quality reference point for myself on what I like to play.
I would like to see that legacy taken to the next step. That is not happening at all however.
This is one of the reasons I agree with the opening point, on the kids of today missing out. There are not many quality references in games for them and clearly not many games suitable for my age-group either.
At this point, a few changes to the game industry would be good.
Weren't graphical adventure games pretty much all about graphics, story and a big showy experience rather than traditional ideas about "gameplay" in the first place? That's why I liked them...
I saw this thread and had to reply.
I can offer a kid's point of view as i am a 15-year old teenager and maybe that will help.
All my former classmates (FORMER, as i'm beginning high-school in a different school, thank God) wanted the newest and best shooter (Quake X), or racer (NFS Underground X). I was considered a freak for even mentioning the word "StarCraft". Geez! Think will ya? I didn't even ONCE hear anything about an adventure game. They worshipped STARS and FASHION and those were the smart ones! (Yikes!)
Not even one that wanted a game that appeared even one month ago!
Answer me this: isn't that sad?
I, myself, am the total opposite of those blithering idiots. I enjoy a good ol' fashion RTS or TBS (I still play Dune and Civilization - the original DOS version). Of course, a good adventure like Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Maniac Mansion, Day of the Tentacle and other LucasArts classic does keep me busy a day or two.
I've been playing games that "make you think" since I was about 10 and still enjoy them today although I've advanced a bit.
Of course, adventure and strategy games are great, but one must admire (even a bit) the pioneering spirit of the other genres and at least give them a try. For example, i played Wolfenstein, Doom, and Quake (1) 'till i finished them, because they're addictive and innovative for their age and i didn't mind blood and gore since those are just for effect.
All the games that i've played made me ask myself one question: "Can I do that?".
I bet at least some people had at least at one time while playing a game the "Can I do that?" or "I can do that!" feeling.
So, for all your brainless children that play endless hours of new and brainwashing games: i'm sorry. But for the rest: don't be close-minded, be open-minded and at least test the other genres.
Input is good, so hope i've helped, or at least made you think.
It is tragic that the corporate conglomerate that is EA pumps out all those licensed racing games and suchlike...it's such a shame adventure games don't have the same monopoly they used to. Only 'Dreamfall' seems to be the most recent 'proper' adventure.
Quote from: PureGhostGR on Wed 09/08/2006 06:56:40
Well, 'I' have changed. I am not a teen anymore and I would like the game industry to be able to address my age-group with a good game.
During those years, I was able to play great games, built lasting memories and define a quality reference point for myself on what I like to play.
I would like to see that legacy taken to the next step. That is not happening at all however.
This is one of the reasons I agree with the opening point, on the kids of today missing out. There are not many quality references in games for them and clearly not many games suitable for my age-group either.
At this point, a few changes to the game industry would be good.
I'm not saying some changes wouldn't be nice. There are a lot I'd like to change but as far as the game's industry now and then... I grew up playing the commodore 64 and when I got older and played the PC and then the NES and then the SNES and then the Playstation... Games didn't really adjust to fit me. Graphics got better, games got longer, load times got shorter [don't complain about a console's load time until you kill 5 minutes waiting for the commodore to load up] and more blood was added but they didn't really get
that much more sophisticated or whatever it is you would judge a more "grown up" game by.
So if you enjoy the games you played as a kid and feel they built a foundation for you but then the games never took it to the next step... How are kids of today missing out? Kids are playing games that are building a foundation for themselves just like you did. Kids of today aren't missing out on anything you just feel that you are missing out because you've grown up and the games don't appeal to you anymore. Think how many older people could care less about Super Mario Brothers when you thought it was hot shit.
There are about a thousand people on these boards who apparently LOVE adventure games and think they are the best genre of game but there are a million kids today who LOVE the Pokémon games. It doesn't matter if you think they're shit and the kids are playing a stupid game, you're not a kid anymore and they are. So if anyone is missing out it's you not them.
How do poor kids even afford these expensive systems?
QuoteI would like to know what percentage of the games from the past are less about money/graphics and more about making an enjoyable game, in your opinion progz. I mean thousands and thousands of games came out in the 80s and 90s and thousands and thousands come out now, what's the difference? Are there amazing games from the 80s? Yessir! 90s? You got it! 2000's? Sure thing! Are there shit derivative games that mean little to anyone from all these eras? Yes. So what's the difference
? What has changed?
Amazing games from the 90's? Few. 2000's? Hardly. That's the difference, but of course likes/dislikes enter into this and there can be no victor in this argument. The only innovation these days seems to come from hardware rather than from story/gameplay, and even innovation is giving the industry more credit than I feel it deserves lately.
Also, before the industry turned Hollywood, I can say with 100% confidence that the developer had the freedom to produce the kind of games
they wanted to without market pressure and external forces dictating conformity. This, in turn, led to the greatest boom in innovative and just plain fun games the industry has ever seen- or will see, imo.
I completely believe that there were a higher percentage of games from the late 70's- to mid-80's that were produced with an enjoyable experience in mind first and foremost and with profit considered a natural side-effect of creating said enjoyable experience. I would argue that today it is much the reverse. There are always exceptions, of course, but I have followed market trends, specifically the game industry, and this is a change I have observed.
As to my point about animatronics, good animatronics (with a decent budget) has fooled me. CGI (no matter the budget) has yet to make me suspend disbelief and say 'is that real?'. Hopefully the distinction here is clear.
so many many many games have come out in the years how can you say that there are "few" and "hardly" any good innovative games? Does that mean there are tons and tons of innovative awesome games from the 70s/80s, like more than 80% of all games from the 70s/80s are innovative in terms or story, gameplay and art?
What reason do you believe that people back in the good ol' days wanted to make fun games more than money? I'm curious, a lot of what I read about Atari would say otherwise. What reason is there to believe that there still aren't tons of developers who still feel that way? Again, there are thousands of games that come out that EA or Activision wasn't involved in or even know are out there. If you're only thinking about big named companies making games then you are ignoring a big percentage of games that come out.
Again, as for CGI/Animatronics. You have been fooled countlessly with CGI. The cool thing is is that you were fooled so well you didn't know it. The beginning of Usual Suspects, they forgot to add an apostrophe to the news headline, they added it in with a computer. They paint out cars and lights and buildings from movies all the time and you are never the wiser. They add buildings and cars too. Did you know that jsut about every gunshot in Once Upon a Time In Mexico was added in later so they didn't have to place squibs everywhere? Oh and my favorite example is when they set an entire city on fire in 28 Days Later. My friend said "Man what a great movie, and it proves you don't need CG to make a good movie!" It was everywhere!
Quote from: big brother on Wed 09/08/2006 16:25:15
How do poor kids even afford these expensive systems?
It's called 'Parents wrapped around your little finger' syndrome.
Mr. Colossal-
You are asking me to qualify an opinion when it's just that: an opinion. If I do not find a game innovative or refreshing then I don't; that I have found hardly any recent games interesting, deep or involving is preference. Friends with similar tastes feel as I do, but you may not--and that's fine. I would say that when the game explosion first hit there were regular innovations in gameplay because experimentation came with less of a risk due in part to the newness of everything. Perhaps the Wii is in a good position to create another such gameplay boom, and I will wait and see how it turns out. As far as art goes, I have to say that despite the prettiness of 3d games, I'm not impressed by 3D visuals the way I am by a game made with a restricted palette and a low resolution. You may chalk this up to my preference of 2D over 3D generally, though I have worked with both.
I, too, have read articles about Atari (possibly the same article as you have?), and I have read many other articles on companies of that age as well as read interviews with developers that have convinced me that Atari was in the minority with their business model back then. Not so today, I think.
What you're saying about CGI I am aware of, but unfortunately you are taking the extreme when you are well aware I was speaking of effects where animatronics have been replaced by CGI due to their perceived superiority. Did they ever replace apostrophes with animatronic white-outs? No. Did they artificially remove headlights with animatronic headlights? No. My initial point was about the gradual (and now near-total) shutdown of the animatronics industry in Hollywood in favor of CGI for effects animatronics
could (and still can) do more convincingly.
Innovation does not imply that a game will be interesting, deep, or involving. I, for one, know that there are tons of innovative games out there; however, that doesn't necessarily mean I enjoy them.
I must be an oddity. That's probably the good parenting talking.
I have played (and own) games from every single gaming decade. I have a TV game from the seventies. If I look hard enough, I can find a couple of games from the 80's (Maniac Mansion eminating like a shining beacon here), I have a plethora of games from the nineties. And a helluvalot of 2000+ games.
You know what? Even as I stare at a screen playing tennis-pong in a black and white interface against my brother, I still smile and enjoy it as much as a seventie's teen would have. I had a space invader game once. Wore it out through overuse. I still play tetris on our GBA. ::) I have played through so many games from the nineties that it's hard to keep track. And I admit to having a gaming computer (the graphics card lets me down). I play quite a few PS2 games as well. But what stock my shelves? I'll note the things that are "missing".
1) Grand Theft Auto and other sencelessly violent games - Stupid, crap clone games played by immature, senceless morons that wouldn't know a good storyline if it came at them with a chainsaw, that only play these games because of the senceless violence and that it fills the timeslot between masturbating and screaming in pensioner's ears.
2) Most shootemups. Can I see Doom: The generic sequel on my shelves? Nope. Can I see Half Live: Kill aliens till you cry, bleeding through the wood? Nope. What First Person games can you see? Morrowind and Battlefield 1942. Both so well scripted and designed it makes you weep.
What's here? Games with a community around them. Age of Empires 2, with it's great community of honest, happy people that love to talk and help whilest using their brain cells to remorcely crush you. Adventure Games. Strategy games. Chess (somewhere). So many imaginative games that it's like being in a storyteller's heaven.
And do you know what I want on these shelves next? A MMORPG called Warhammer: Age of Reckoning, with such a tight gaming community, who even in the harshest conditions imaginable (being strung along by a senceless game company, having the original game cancelled, keeping together in the months that followed, and changing seemlessly into a new game) survived. I want to spend many evenings with these people. Spore. So, SO imgainative that I will positively hug the creator if I saw him.
Call me a hypocrite if you will, but honestly, I feel honoured to have had known so many great people while playing these games. Communities thrive on great games. Maybe once games accept that the path to eternal fame lies in it's community, we'll have an upturn.
And if you have played and *shudder* enjoy stuff like GTA, I probably wasn't refering to you. I was reffering to some kids in my area.
- Huw
Quote from: Huw "I'm scary" Dawson on Wed 09/08/2006 22:33:17
1) Grand Theft Auto and other sencelessly violent games - Stupid, crap clone games played by immature, senceless morons that wouldn't know a good storyline if it came at them with a chainsaw, that only play these games because of the senceless violence and that it fills the timeslot between masturbating and screaming in pensioner's ears.
I do not play GTA for the senseless violence. Heck if I wanted to, I could play the game as a nice citizen, drive carefully, stop at the traffic lights.. etc. But that would be boring. No, the reason I like GTA is the freedom it gives, I'm am free to drive/walk/cycle around a massive open city/country, and explore to my heart's content.
What I'm interested in is how you came to that opinion. Did you arrive at that opinion because you just don't like the few games you've played now-a-days or did you look at the games industry and find some way of seeing into it that gives you the opinion that games are no longer innovative?
What are you comparing is what I'm also interested in. You say you've done this research and something in that research leads you to believe that games are markedly different now than they were 20 years ago in terms of gameplay and innovation.
The awkward continuation of CGI! I should have been more clear, sorry, you also mentioned rotoscoping which is how you would add in an apostrophe or gunshots [or lasers]. Also, I feel you are taking the extreme by excusing thousands of movies with shitty or obviously fake animatronics and saying that the few good animatronic movies prove that all CGI is bad. But whatever.
I'll start with a brief history of my adventures in gaming.
Mid-80's.Ã,Â
Christmas, some year.Ã, Grandparents buy me a Sinclair Spectrum ZX 128k, with a joysitck and a bunch of games.Ã, It was some bulk pack, with 100 games on 10 tapes.Ã, I played them all once to try.Ã, After that, I played one maybe two often.
I used to buy games on a weekly basis, from some market.Ã, Most of them were undeniably sh*tty.Ã, Now and then, I found a game I enjoyed.
Late-80's.
Christmas again.Ã, Sega Master System, with Alex Kidd in Miracle World built-in.Ã, It was the only game I had to begin with, and I played it for ages.Ã, Hated it, though.Ã, Later got Sonic the Hedgehog.Ã, Liked the game, aside from the side-scrolling that was automatic.Ã, Bought some other games, whenever I could afford it.Ã, Mostly, they were rather sh*tty, again.
Later-80's or Very Early-90's.
Another Christmas, another Sega.Ã, This time the Mega Drive (Genesis).Ã, Sonic the Hedgehog again, this time without the auto-scroll.Ã, Loved it.Ã, Played it for as long as I could, as often as I could.Ã, Some other games were bought, a couple of good ones, but mostly sh*tty.
Early-90's.
Convince parents to buy my friend's 386 DX/16, with 2 meg ram and a sound card.Ã, Legend of Kyrandia was installed on it, which started my passion for adventures.Ã, Started buying PC magazines, and playing demos.Ã, Mostly, they were sh*tty.Ã, Borrowed Civilisation 1.Ã, On 5.25" floppies.Ã, I stopped socialising for that game.
Various upgrades later, and I'd played many PC games, mostly sh*tty ones.Ã, But, I'd found to genres I liked.
Late-ish 90's.
Yet another Christmas, yet another console.Ã, The N64.Ã, My first Nintendo.Ã, Bought purely for The Legend of Zelda and the Ocarina of Time.Ã, Played through to finish, many times.Ã, (It's rare that I complete games).
It came free with Goldeneye.Ã, Every one I knew loved that game.Ã, I thought it was sh*tty.Ã, Much like most of the other games I played on it, with the exceptions of Conker's Bad Fur Day and some obscure NFL game.
2000 and something.
Borrowed a DreamCast.Ã, Alone in the Dark game.Ã, Soul Calibur.Ã, Worms.Ã, Other sh*tty games.
Some Time ago, I forget when.
Got my friend to bring me back a GBA from Hong-Kong, soon after they came out.Ã, Borrowed Golden Sun from a friend.Ã, Got about halfway through when he wanted it back.Ã, Never bought a game.Ã, Leant it to a friend at work last year, haven't seen it since.
Later, I think.
GameCube.Ã, Zelda again.Ã, Still haven't finished it, but went back to it often.Ã, BloodRayne.Ã, Same thing.Ã, A bunch of other games, mostly sh*tty.Ã, Now it gathers dust.
Brittens, Last Year.
Bought Magintz's DS.Ã, Tested it there.Ã, Didn't touch it again until I gave it to Scotch at Brightonjam.Ã, Metroid Demo was sh*tty.Ã, Couldn't be assed buying games for it as they'd most likely be sh*tty, too.
Present Day.
Right, what have we learnt so far?Ã, I've played a whole bunch of games in the past, on various systems.Ã, I liked a few, but on the whole, most were sh*tty.Ã, Sadly, I'm certain that pattern will stay the same in the future, too.
I can look back and think "I played some really great games when I was younger", but that's mostly due to the fact that I tend to only remember the good ones.Ã, In the last few years, I can probly name quite a few games that I've played for much longer than ones I regard as "Classics".Ã, In the future, I'll regard my favorites from now as classic games, too.
It's down to two things that make a "classic" game.Ã, Personal preference (especially for a genre) is the first.Ã, Sadly, I hated Mario in every incarnation.Ã, I've always preferred Sonic.Ã, My school days were filled with arguments about which console was better, or which franchise.Ã, It's still around today, with the x-box vs. the ps2 etc.Ã, But, neither console has a distinctive franchise associated with it.Ã, Sadly, I remember Sonic more for the fact that we argued than that I actually enjoyed the game.
I love adventure games, but they are few and far between these days. I like turn based isometric few type things, like x-com and fallout, but they're not as popular now, either. Most games nowadays are often FPS games, and sadly, they're just not my type of game. The make me feel claustrophobic, so I do my best to avoid them. That doesn't make those games bad, some people love them and regard many as classics.
Secondly, what makes a game a "classic" for me, is how involved I feel.Ã, This isn't true for everyone, though.Ã, I like games that make me think, and just think short-term, either.Ã, I like long games, whether it's from plot or from the type of gameplay.Ã, I can't stand reaction-based games, they're just not my thing.Ã, The majority of Platformers sicken me, since it's mostly just jumping around until I fall down and then have to start again.Ã, FPS games?Ã, I'm just crap at them.Ã, Tetris?Ã, Boring as hell.Ã, Wario-world?Ã, It's like virtual ADHD.
I prefer games that use a mouse and keyboard.Ã, Mostly a mouse, though.Ã, My friend at work thinks joypads are much better because you can sit back in an armchair and relax whilst you play.Ã, I prefer long, in-depth games.Ã, He prefers stuff you can turn-on, play for a short-while, then turn-off.Ã, We all differ in how we prefer games, so we're all going to differ in how we view the current state of the games industry.
Thanks to consoles becoming so popular in the last decade, the games had shifted towards having a more pick-up and play when you have friends over approach than sitting alone playing late into the night.
Some people think "multiplayer" is connecting to a server, others think it's having two joypads.Ã, The young folk of today do have games they'll look back on fondly, just not for the same reasons most of us remember.
QuoteSo if you enjoy the games you played as a kid and feel they built a foundation for you but then the games never took it to the next step... How are kids of today missing out?
This might be a bit difficult for me to explain in English, so I will try to keep it simple.
It is not that I want to lower the value of the current game industry, but rather the fact that I feel really lucky myself that I had a chance to witness a 'really good' period of it, first hand.
That is what I feel that these kids are missing the most.
I can still recall the 2D period of gaming and how much fun everything was.. and then when everyone started going 3D, in my opinion.. something got lost in the translation.
Is it so strange or wrong to feel that there are important things missing from the game industry today?
I cannot help but do so.
Edit: Paragraphs
I'm only three years old but the only kind of games I like are the original classics by LucasArts and Sierra. All my friends are like "play GTA" or "play Halo" and I'm all like "NO WAY!!!!" I only play classic point and click adventure games and they must be in 2d. Todays games smell. My opinion on this topic is very important.
Boy, we do sound like old farts don't we?
I love a lot of modern games (GTA I very much enjoy), but I also miss a lot of the adventures that proliferated when I was young. There just seemed so much more woth buying, whereas I'm very careful about what I buy now. There's just not enough worth looking forward to.
There ARE a lot of great modern games released, unfortunately there's a deluge of crap or distinctly average titles (See Need for Speed: Bling-Bling edition or whatever) that top the charts and sell like crazy, and these drown out games of true quality (Psychonauts anyone?)
Quote from: modgeulator on Thu 10/08/2006 08:05:46
I'm only three years old but the only kind of games I like are the original classics by LucasArts and Sierra. All my friends are like "play GTA" or "play Halo" and I'm all like "NO WAY!!!!" I only play classic point and click adventure games and they must be in 2d. Todays games smell. My opinion on this topic is very important.
lol! :=
I just happen to be a kid of today and there is a reason im here, because I LIKE P & C Adventure games. You see a long time ago my auntie bought a game and with it came a deal, Buy one and pick one of these other games free. I wanted need for spped but my mum bought some sh*t game called MONKEY ISLAND <-- CURSE OF. How guvenile i thought and next minute I was playing this truly awsome game about pirates and tofu and lactose-intolerant volcaneos. there just hasnt been any game that lives up to the atmosphere of MI yet. Though sitting next to me is a newly built pc that I made especially for such awsome 3D games such as Oblivion, Physchonauts etc. So really as great as P&C games are you cant pretend you havent enjoyed blasting a few ugly demon alien scumm in an FPS just as much as joining a crew of dastardly pirate scumm, eh?
Sure there's lots of crap today, but theyre always be the great ones that people look back to. When people get nostalgic about this generation of video games, I hope they look back on:
Metal Gear Solid (The "first one" for Playstation)
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
Psychonauts
Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind
Resident Evil 4
Super Smash Brothers Melee
These are all games that deserve classic status in 10 years. Heck, MGS is old enough to deserve classic status now. I could probably list more, I just got these from a quick glance up at my video game collection.
Morrowind...Yummy... ;D
People insist to look at the violent or more hedonistic parts of games. Half-Life 1 and 2 were great games. Sure there was a lot of shooting, but still... I'd go so far as to say that Half-Life is practically a 3d adventure game. Not 100% of course; there are MANY shells tossed about. You can't judge it if you haven't played it. There are many moments involving clever thought just like an adventure game. These games have a unique and entertaining story. There's a wonderful atmosphere to go alongside it all too. Aside of Half-Life though, you're all right, there isn't much in the ways of innovation in the FPS world.
Someone said GTA is trash, or something along those lines. There are people who play the game solely to carve people with chainsaws, but not everyone who has this game is a moron. There's a wide appeal to this game for a reason. It's all about freedom. I own the game alongside my (Possibly bootlegged) copy of MI and Civilization (3 and 4). Playing GTA is a lot more like Civ than you'd imagine. What's mercilessy stabbing an old lady to death in GTA compared to mercilessly wiping out an entire civilization in Civ 4? GTA just gets more into the gritty than other games do and gets in trouble for doing it. There are plenty of things to do aside of killing people. The storyline, voice acting, and overall direction of the game is easily among the greatest in video games.
For the record, I'm not some kid on testosterone who thinks GTA and FPS's are the only games worth playing. I love my old lucasarts adventure games as much as anyone on this board, and my favorite game of all time is Super Mario World. I'm just tired of these games getting a bad rap for having-shock-violence in them. Just because an art form has violence in it doesn't mean it can't also be as deep, meaningful, or downright aweome as something without violence, despite how many producers continue to put "Now with more blood than ever!!!" on the box. Violence isn't the problem with video games. Didn't Romeo & Juliet have everyone die a meaningless, horrible death at the end?
I'm 18, raised in this rightfully called "Poor kids of today" generation, but am at a healthy medium between "Things were so much better in the old days..." and "Anything made before I was five isn't worth playing". Kids will latch onto new classics. Bad games of the era will be forgotten and kids will partake in this very conversation later in life. To sum up the entire talk of "How are kids going to experience games", I think this wipes it up nicely...
"The more things change, the more they stay the same..."
(However I'm not smart enough to know who coined this phrase, heh)
Quote from: Cookieswithmilk on Wed 16/08/2006 08:30:48
Someone said GTA is trash, or something along those lines. There are people who play the game solely to carve people with chainsaws, but not everyone who has this game is a moron.
Thank you. ;D
I might be one of those "poor kids of today" since I'm only fifteen, but I love classics more than I like the newer games. Even though I'm kind of a sadistic bastard that enjoys blowing up stuff/people in modern FPS' doesn't mean I'm one of those MTV-teen idiots.
I'd rather play Mega Man or any Super Mario-game for a whole weekend than Doom 3. That reminds me, I've yet to kick Wily's ass in MM1. :=
Quote from: Cookieswithmilk on Wed 16/08/2006 08:30:48
"The more things change, the more they stay the same..."
(However I'm not smart enough to know who coined this phrase, heh)
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/alphonse_karr.html
EDIT:
Most likely, you know it from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116225/quotes
*Tips hat to Renal*
Nicely done, sir.