Poor kids of today...

[MrColossal]

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.

[Raggit]

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.   

[Bubbles]

I'm 13 and these games give me the nostalgic feeling of Hugo games

[fred]

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?

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.

[PureGhostGR]

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?

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.

[modgeulator]

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...

[Dan_N]

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.

[MarkPhantom]

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.

[MrColossal]

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.

[big brother]

How do poor kids even afford these expensive systems?

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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?

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.

[MrColossal]

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!

[MarkPhantom]

How do poor kids even afford these expensive systems?

It's called 'Parents wrapped around your little finger' syndrome.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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.

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

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.

[Huw Dawson]

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

[ManicMatt]

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.

[MrColossal]

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.

[Renal Shutdown]

I'll start with a brief history of my adventures in gaming.

Mid-80's.Ã, 

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.

[PureGhostGR]

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?

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