Everything used to be better - not for videogames!

[lendelin]

Everything Used To Be Better - Not For Videogames

(Alert: this isn't a post, it's a novel!)

In the last couple of months when I hit the stores for new games, I had tough choices to make. Familiar titles like Metroid, Rygar, Shinobi, Super Mario, Contra, or Zelda sucked me into a warp zone to the past. Dark screen, "welcome, you enter the 80's." I had warm flashbacks of my first Zelda and Metroid experiences, and remembered the good old game ads in which kids were nicely dressed with clean haircuts instead of wearing cool sunglasses showing you the finger. Two boys, maybe 14 years old, brought me back to reality when they had a dispute which game to buy. "Not Super Mario, it's so cheesy." Are these kids spoiled? In 1990 I almost stood in line for a Super Mario 3! Then I remembered that the new Super Mario Sunshine wasn't my first priority either. What happened? Didn't everything used to be better and easier in the good old 8- bit times, from gameplay to less confusion which games to buy?

Was indeed everything better in a more innocent era of videogames? I'm afraid not. In hardly any other branche of the entertainment industry can we observe such a fast development - incredible graphics and bombastic sound add to gameplay than never before, and more than 30 years of experience in game-developing have dramatically increased the overall quality of games. When it comes to play lenght, control, graphics, sound and difficulty level, there are hardly any real stinkers offered; and this wasn't the case in the good old 8-bit times in which lots of games were clearly below average and had such bad control that they were hardly playable despite their arcade origins. The days are over in which two guys in a basement could develop with lots of hard work in a couple of months a game. It was sometimes innovative, but more often than not amateurish, just slightly out of target towards the audience, and more often than not just plain bad. Money played always a big role, but much less so than nowadays, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

What we observe in the videogame industry is a degree of professionalism which was hardly foreseeable 15 years ago. The mass appeal of games and the prospect of big profits which rival in the meantime the movie industry professionalized the game industry in every aspect, from marketing research, recruiting game developers, costs for game development, and the distribution of games. Increased marketing research means that we players are offered to play what we want. Professional organized input of gamers means that mistakes of gameplay are less often repeated and the quality level increased over time. Defeating "Goldman" in "Dragon Warrior" over and over and over again wasn't as much fun as playing the smooth and involving story of Final Fantasy X, and Final Fantasy 2 was already an improvement over Final Fantasy 1 in this regard.

And there are the top hits with several millions of development costs which can make or break entire software development firms. Not necessarily bad if you think about that the quality testing for these games are better than ever before they hit the market because a lot of money is at risk. Money doesn't rule over quality today, quality IS money in a fierce competitive market.

The often heard argument that the golden age or ages of videogames were more innovative doesn't hold true either. We observe a game industry which tests in an exciting way the limits of game content because the socio-demographics of players (except for gender) changed dramatically in the last ten years. Experimentation with new play concepts and graphics in almost every genre produced a lineup of high quality games which the industry never experienced before; Grand Theft Auto, Final Fantasy X, Gran Turismo 3, Xenosaga, XIII, Viewtiful Joe, Jak and Dexter 2 are the search for new concepts to breathe new air into old genres. My lamentation about too many choices of games and worries if my ever beloved Nintendo will survive is the result of increased competition from which we all profit. Nintendo was never forced to release a new Metroid, Zelda and Super Mario within SIX months - clearly the result of the fierce competition with Sony and Microsoft. Yes, I don't know what to buy anymore, but I won't complain about it when I look at my stack of first-rate games I haven't played yet or games I still have to buy - Rygar, Shinobi, Xenosaga, Panzer Dragoon Orta, Grand Theft Auto Vice City, Suikoden 3, Medal of Honor Frontline, Morrowind, Dark Cloud 2, StarFox Adventures...and the list goes on and on. In every genre we are spoiled in the meantime with quality games and complain about phenomena which are as old as the game industry with the only difference that they exist nowadays to a lesser degree; clone games, copycats, lack of innovation, premature releases, quirks in gameplay, and about the ever-so-familiar beating a once successful game concept to death.

More innocence and naivite of the games and the industry are appealing and heart-warming in retrospect, but it also meant less professionalism with all it's negative aspects. My uneasiness with a changed industry is clearly a product of increased professionalism and competition which in the end is good for game players because we have more choices of games and better games to play. Baseball in the 30s was less professionalized, and truly Babe Ruth was an exceptional player; although business aspects play more than ever a role in baseball, the overall quality of the sports went up. Same goes for videogames.

No, not everything used to be better, at least when it comes to videogames.

[SoulBlazer]

Great post. I agree with you 100%. :D I still play classic games now and then (one every week, for sure), but 90 percent of my gaming money is spent on modern games, which I play at least every day. :-D And it's not like I'm a 'new' gamer either -- I cut my teeth on the 2600 and grew up with a NES as my first love. Just as I've goten older and games have gotten better, the modern games (the 'current' games) have kept me coming back time and time again. Maybe that trend will change in a few years as I aproach my late 20's.....I'm not sure. Many people may not have time to play a modern game -- that's fine, I understand that. For me, I MAKE time if the game is good enough. And is the game fun -- that's STILL the most important question. Always has been, always will be!

[Phosphor Dot Fossils]

That may be valid from a business/management perspective, but I'd beg to differ on the creative end. It seems like 90% of everything that's come out has been locked down to a handful of genres. We don't wind up with very many genre-defining games like Defender, Pac-Man, Night Driver or Donkey Kong, all of which I would argue changed the rules completely and changed how everything was done afterward.

Now we've got tons of first-person racing games. And I'm sure they're making someone money somewhere. But the innovation doesn't seem to be there anymore.

Or maybe I'm an old stick in the mud. That's possible too. :)

To qualify this, I'll also admit that I've been playing Clickum like mad for the past week or so. Tons of fun - and it was written by none other than our own Steve Woita, pretty much on his own. Quality does not necessarily lean so heavily on money. I'd say the small development houses, and the folks writing games on their own time (see also Bejeweled, that great killer of productivity over the past few years), is where the real innovation is - and arguably the fun too. I guess it depends on how much you like the genres that the mega-budget releases are locked into.

[lendelin]

@Soulblazer: I play my old Willow and galaga also once in a while, and of course I bought Final Fantasy Origins...but like you, I LOVE to play a Metroid Prime, or a Panzer Dragoon Orta (damn, what a game!!!); and don't be worried that will change with age...my first experiences are with the NES, and I'm 45 (yep, no typo :) ...and still...I think the present times are paradise for videogame players.

@Phosphor:

"We don't wind up with very many genre-defining games like Defender, Pac-Man, Night Driver or Donkey Kong, all of which I would argue changed the rules completely and changed how everything was done afterward."

True, but don't forget, if an industry it's in an infantile stage, the most basic ground breaking ideas can be hardly topped. The basic layout is always done in such a stage.

"Quality does not necessarily lean so heavily on money. I'd say the small development houses, and the folks writing games on their own time (see also Bejeweled, that great killer of productivity over the past few years), is where the real innovation is - and arguably the fun too."

Money and its pressure and CREATIVITY is a difficult topic. I'd say that basically there is no relationship between the two. Musical composers like Bach were forced by contract to produce a liturgical mess every week (!), and it didn't hinder their creativity; Brecht wrote "Mack the Knife" the night before the premiere becasue the actor who played Mackie threatened not to play if there is no song about HIM :) Rubens had a great sponsor who gave him all the time of the world to produce his fanatstic paintings.

My point is, the increased business aspects and incresed role of money aren't necessarily bad for us gamers, because more and overall better games are produced. Nintendo would LOVE to have a fresh, innovative, and groundbreaking game to shorten the distance to Sony - like they passed the Genesis with Street Fighter 2 in the 90s. Increased competition means a desperation for innovative ideas, and quality is money for developers, publishers, and the hardware manufacturerrs. That doesn't mean that bad games like this awfully hyped Enter The Matrix can make a big profit sometimes (unfortunately!) - but these instances are fewer than twenty years ago becasuse we can cjoose from more first rate games.

[kainemaxwell]

At least once a week or day I return to playing some classic games myself, either via emulator or I spend a few hours with Activision Anthology. For me it's good to kow where we came from so we can see how much we've progressed with games and the content of them then and now to see where we could go next.

[YoshiM]

Hey Lendy! Welcome to the DP boards! Definitely more lively here than VGB (no offence to VGB who may be lurking in the shadows- still a good forum but doesn't get the traffic this place does).

I have to re-read your novella and see if I changed my mind from 4 months ago (note to all: Lendelin and I had a discussion on this exact topic back in April). This thread should get some interesting comments with the larger member base here.

Be prepared all, I'm sure it's going to be a battle of verbosity!

[lendelin]

LOL, YOSHI!!!!! I had no idea you're on DP! That's a great surprise. Yeah, we two had a great discussion about the topic somewhere else, and Yoshi had fanatstic and intelligent arguments (although we're pretty much split on the topic, hehe)

I posted my verbose lil essay on this board because in another section ("urge to become a collector") someone wrote that he prefers the current games over the classics.


Great to hear from you guy again!!! Really a nice surprise! :)

[Arcade Antics]

Was indeed everything better in a more innocent era of videogames? I'm afraid not.

Not better, not worse. Just different. :)


In hardly any other branche of the entertainment industry can we observe such a fast development - incredible graphics and bombastic sound add to gameplay than never before, and more than 30 years of experience in game-developing have dramatically increased the overall quality of games.

Someone get the crack pipe away from lendelin! :)

But seriously folks... beautiful sights and sounds do not a game make. Cliche? Yes. But it's absolutely true. Do games look and sound better now? For the most part, yes - as a direct result of better technology. I dare say that - overall - games "now" are as good as games were "then."


When it comes to play lenght, control, graphics, sound and difficulty level, there are hardly any real stinkers offered; and this wasn't the case in the good old 8-bit times in which lots of games were clearly below average and had such bad control that they were hardly playable despite their arcade origins.

Hardly any stinkers now? To a certain degree, that's a probably a matter of personal taste, but I'd dare say that there are just as many (if not way more) stinkers now as there ever were.


The days are over in which two guys in a basement could develop with lots of hard work in a couple of months a game. It was sometimes innovative, but more often than not amateurish, just slightly out of target towards the audience, and more often than not just plain bad.

Those days are not over now, nor will they ever be over. Look at all the homebrew stuff for the 2600, 5200, ColecoVision, Vectrex, Intellivision, etc., etc. Look at the budget PSX games. Two-guys-in-a-basement games will always be around.


What we observe in the videogame industry is a degree of professionalism which was hardly foreseeable 15 years ago. The mass appeal of games and the prospect of big profits which rival in the meantime the movie industry professionalized the game industry in every aspect, from marketing research, recruiting game developers, costs for game development, and the distribution of games.

Is professionalism the term you're looking for? Maybe commercialism? More cooks doesn't mean more professional - there's really no relationship there at all.


Increased marketing research means that we players are offered to play what we want.

No it doesn't. Just ask our pal Aswald... ;)


Professional organized input of gamers means that mistakes of gameplay are less often repeated and the quality level increased over time. Defeating "Goldman" in "Dragon Warrior" over and over and over again wasn't as much fun as playing the smooth and involving story of Final Fantasy X, and Final Fantasy 2 was already an improvement over Final Fantasy 1 in this regard.

Then how do you explain the Infogrames/Atari Matrix Reloaded debacle. 8-)


And there are the top hits with several millions of development costs which can make or break entire software development firms. Not necessarily bad if you think about that the quality testing for these games are better than ever before they hit the market because a lot of money is at risk. Money doesn't rule over quality today, quality IS money in a fierce competitive market.

Quality testing is better? Then why are all these crap games still coming out at a frightening rate? Drek like Pac-Man Fever, Evil Dead, Matrix Reloaded, Gubble, etc., etc.


The often heard argument that the golden age or ages of videogames were more innovative doesn't hold true either.

It's not an argument though. It's a fact. Old games, by definition, were more innovative. That's not a fault of new games, just fact.

Gaming now is different, to be sure. But I'd never give up Robotron, Sinistar, Joust, Crystal Castles and Millipede in order to play GTA Vice City, Amplitude, Super Monkey Ball, Virtua Tennis and Samba de Amigo. I think we're lucky to have as many awesome games, old and new, as we do. And as long as they keep making 'em, I'll keep buying and playing 'em. Regardless of whether or not they're "old" or "new." :)

[YoshiM]

LOL, YOSHI!!!!! I had no idea you're on DP! That's a great surprise. Yeah, we two had a great discussion about the topic somewhere else, and Yoshi had fanatstic and intelligent arguments (although we're pretty much split on the topic, hehe)

I posted my verbose lil essay on this board because in another section ("urge to become a collector") someone wrote that he prefers the current games over the classics.

..and well, you might know why I left the other website, I had a run-in with this Arrha guy who behaves like a mixture of a spoiled brat and a drama queen :) ...and this guy is a moderator for heavens sake, lol.

Great to hear from you guy again!!! Really a nice surprise! :)

This was really my first "home", as it were. Stumbled onto VGB from one of his posts. And I had no idea about difficulty between you and Arr, but I can see where you come from.

I'll stew on your post over lunch and I'll post on topic later.

[ManekiNeko]

Bleech. Video games used to be a lot more fun... now they're dark, violent, and depressing, and almost always presented in frustrating 3D. Your post may have been eloquent and from the heart, but that doesn't mean I even remotely agree with it.

JR

[digitalpress]

LOL, YOSHI!!!!! I had no idea you're on DP! That's a great surprise.

Slightly OT, Dan "YoshiM" Mahlendorf is our section editor for the N64 Collector's Guide, and it's coming along really well. Check it out if you haven't already http://www.digitpress.com/lists.htm

(our section editors are a humble bunch - great work and they never crow about it - leaving me to do that for them!)

Sorry, back to the topic!

[SoulBlazer]

I don't think Nekko has played some of the lighthearted stuff for the GC and GBA like Pikimin, Super Mario Sunshine, and the upcoming Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. Hardly dark and depressing and not all of them are full 3D either.

Games are always made that fit SOMEONE's taste -- you just have to look for them. :-D

[NE146]

What we observe in the videogame industry is a degree of professionalism which was hardly foreseeable 15 years ago

I think for many people it was ABSOLUTELY forseeable and expected. Maybe not as much in the classic era, but as early as the NES days there were ramblings and thoughts of the videogame industry potentially evolving and growing to a point where it was a mainstream entertainment medium surpassing even the movie industry. I mean it really didn't take that much effort to imagine just how far videogames and the videogame industry COULD go. I remember seeing the 'cinemas' in NES Ninja Gaiden and saying.. "it's only going to keep getting bigger and better" and naturally, it has. . I for one expected it to happen a lot sooner than it did (although I have yet to see the immersive holographic games I also imagined LOL).


No, not everything used to be better, at least when it comes to videogames.

Well naturally. I sure as heck hope that in the year 2023 people won't be making arguments as to how the Xbox/ps2/GC games from 2003 are NOT better than the "current" batch of games. Heck we BETTER have better games by then or something is friggin wrong! LOL

That being said, all generations have their own respective timeless diamonds which is why I just can't get into this "which is better" mindset. Because to me, it's just one big stream of videogames. I think it's a mistake to compare and contrast games of today to games of yesterday too seriously because of the simple fact that they are from different times. They may not seem as entertaining today but for their time they were indeed CUTTING EDGE. And that's the light that I still see and play them... not in some colored "after the fact" lense of 2003.. but as IT WAS.

e.g. I can't see my 5200 Joust as anything but the best for it's time, and indeed in 1982 seeing those graphics on the tv screen was as good as any consumer could get. Ditto for 2600 games like Demon Attack. Or even SNES games like Starfox. It aint all about graphics either. The twitch gameplay of games like Kaboom! have yet to be truly replicated in any modern game and has pretty much been forgotten... I'd imagine that it will get revived in some form or another someday though.. who knows.

I guess I'm just rambling on at this point.. :P But my childhood Atari 2600 sits comfortably next to my Xbox and everything else in between. And I see nothing unusual about playing Madden 2k4 on the PS2 then challenging my friends to Intellivision Baseball. It's just videogames.. and it's all good baby :) I'm definitely always right there on the "new" as I've always been, but there's no way I'm gonna miss out on playing the gems of the past :)

[SoulBlazer]

Great post, NE. Pretty much sums up what I was trying to say in my eariler posts, and I agree with you fully.

I think the hardest problem is trying not to look at a 20 year old game that we have fond memories of with rose colored glasses, but look at it in the time and place it was made. Just about impossible to do, myself included. :)

[den68]

It's just videogames.. and it's all good baby I'm definitely always right there on the "new" as I've always been, but there's no way I'm gonna miss out on playing the gems of the past


This is my philosophy as well. I really have no preference for one era over another and I don't look at my enjoyment of the older games as a nostalgia trip either. To me any game I get that I haven't had or played before is "new" whether or not it's for XBOX or Intellivision. I'm just happy I've got so much to choose from.

[ManekiNeko]

"I don't think Nekko has played some of the lighthearted stuff for the GC and GBA like Pikimin, Super Mario Sunshine, and the upcoming Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. Hardly dark and depressing and not all of them are full 3D either. "

Yes, I'm familiar with those THREE games. That's not enough, though. Games like Quake and Grand Theft Auto get a lot more press and are a lot more popular. It's gotten to the point where game companies are cancelling the *cute* games and releasing the controversial ones instead, rather than the other way around like it was in the 80's. Case in point: Goemon for the Playstation. Some have claimed that it was because Sony and Working Designs didn't have a great working relationship, but if Working Designs has made enemies with every game console manufacturer in existence, I have a difficult time understanding how they can even remain in business.

JR

[YoshiM]

My point is, the increased business aspects and incresed role of money aren't necessarily bad for us gamers, because more and overall better games are produced. Nintendo would LOVE to have a fresh, innovative, and groundbreaking game to shorten the distance to Sony - like they passed the Genesis with Street Fighter 2 in the 90s. Increased competition means a desperation for innovative ideas, and quality is money for developers, publishers, and the hardware manufacturerrs. That doesn't mean that bad games like this awfully hyped Enter The Matrix can make a big profit sometimes (unfortunately!) - but these instances are fewer than twenty years ago becasuse we can cjoose from more first rate games.

That's still pretty much in the eyes of a beholder. While we are seeing some pretty fresh games trickling through (KOTOR, Viewtiful Joe and Otogi come to mind) the money makers are still coming from sequels, rehashes and whatnot. Not saying they are bad games, just something I wouldn't call "first rate".

As for increased competition and innovation-where are they? Many developers are either going for the money pot by releasing on PS2 only OR will release on all of the platforms to try and snag a larger audience. If there is this despiration to compete and rise above others why do we have such things as Enter the Matrix or RTX Red Rock? EtM was going to be an obvious moneymaker, but still why make such a shoddy game? One would think if the developers put the same effort into EtM as Rockstar did to GTA 3 it would sell even MORE copies, right? RTX Red Rock has been in development for what seems to be forever and what comes out is a couple steps above shovelware doesn't make sense given that the developer was Lucasarts. I'm sure the idea of making a truely quality product was the original intent when the game was inked on paper but it typically boils down to the money. The bean counters watch the trends, watch what sells and what doesn't and they (usually) decide what gets made and it BETTER go out on time, quality be damned. In the case of the buggy and generally sucky Enter the Matrix, George Orwell's idea of "doublespeak" from 1984 is in full effect (and borrowing from Lendy's statement): "Money=quality" (meaning EtM sold like hotcakes so you KNOW some pug nosed exec is going to try the same manuever in the future with some hot property without a thought about actual quality).

[zmeston]

Case in point: Goemon for the Playstation. Some have claimed that it was because Sony and Working Designs didn't have a great working relationship, but if Working Designs has made enemies with every game console manufacturer in existence, I have a difficult time understanding how they can even remain in business.

WD's relationship with Sony deteriorated after certain Victor Ireland-favoring peeps at Sony left the building, but Goemon's rejection was primarily because it's a zero-generation PS2 title (Japanese launch) which WD wanted to sell at a premium price. That's also why WD is being forced to bundle Growlanser 2 and 3, two playable but obsolescent strategy/RPGs.

And yet, Atlus is allowed to ship Disgaea, which runs at the same resolution as a PS1 game, as a full-price title, because Atlus and SCEA are tight. The politics, always the politics.

Working Designs will never publish an Xbox game because Victor has repeatedly slammed Microsoft, and will never publish a GameCube game because third parties don't make money on GameCube releases unless they're triple-A titles. Victor is thus stuck with Sony.

Victor hasn't just alienated console manufacturers, incidentally -- he's universally hated by game journalists, with the exception of Play's Dave Halverson, and even they feuded a while back.

-- Z.

[christianscott27]

a lot of the retro gaming scene is about recapturing the fun from your childhood so its matter of your age and prespective. for me its not that the old games are better, they're not necessarily but where i was in life when it all came out. i'm old enough to been alive when videogames didnt really exist (well a few rich people had pong but not mainstream), i dont think the kids of the 80s on can relate to that. we went from board games to video games and what a leap that was! one day you're all over rock em sock em robots and then its like whoa space invaders on the TV! back then parents could pretty much buy their kids friends with an atari, we'd ride our bikes great distances just to get in a game or two. the sheer novelty of the early 80s gaming scene can never be duplicated, not to sound like a 60s hippy but- you had to be there man!

[zmeston]

1984 is in full effect (and borrowing from Lendy's statement): "Money=quality" (meaning EtM sold like hotcakes so you KNOW some pug nosed exec is going to try the same manuever in the future with some hot property without a thought about actual quality).

In the future? Game companies have been shipping licensed games without quality gameplay for more than 20 years, dating back to E.T. on the 2600, which, like Enter the Matrix, sold very well.

It's foolish for a developer to worry about quality with a licensed game, anyway. The main concern is using lots of audio/visual assets from the property -- which Enter the Matrix most certainly did. Even if a developer attempts to inject original gameplay ideas, the licensors will shoot down those ideas to "protect the brand." There's no need to waste time and energy on a licensed game that will sell based upon the popularity of the brand, not the quality of the gameplay.

-- Z.

[The Clonus Horror]

Yeah, with all the great socio-demographic marketing research, soon video games will be McDonaldized, and we will be be TOLD what to play! YAAAAAAAAAY? Either that, or all of our games will be in Spanish.

Not a racial dig there, but you all should pick up a copy of the book "The McDonaldisation of America"...the author escapes me at the moment.

[lendelin]

First, Yoshi you lil' critter, you never mentioned that you're involved with DP! After all them years (well, weeks, ok) I have to learn about it? :) I feel like a wife learning the truth about her husband. :)

I agree with Dennis and others who say that this is not a competition between game eras. I feel the same way. A good game is a good game. Period. No matter when it was made, under different conditions, great gameplay and games can always be enjoyed. However, I think it's a puzzling Q to ask if the last twenty or thirty years was for the better or worse for the games and the industry. Imagine a game developer twenty years ago and today. The turf changed, the games changed, the industry changed....for better or worse????

Regarding Enter the Matrix: Absolutely agree. A bad, hyped game framed by movie sequences which harks back to the worst times when a movie license was a recipe for a crappy game which makes profit. (read my letter in GameInformer, vol. 124, p.16, signed Klaus, Milwaukee) But don't forget guys, we also have Spiderman and EAs Lord of the Rings. As I said, premature releases of bad games who make profit still exist, but not as many as to the worst Atari times due to the fierce competition.

I wrote the post for three reasons: 1) There were never so many "good" games offered mixed with absolutely top hits than in the last two years. 2) There is a fundamental economic restructering within the videogame industry going on because it becomes professionalized. 3) The mythology build-up about the founding fathers of videogames sometimes blurs our perception of the present. Don't get me wrong, mythology build-up is great and necessary because it's a result of a success story. Classic gaming conventions, the research about the history of games, the well deserved reverence to Ralph Baer and Nolan Bushnell, the more and more developing videogame collection scene, the hall of fame in which the roots of videogames are celebrated is a must and there is a need for it; but don't let this romantic feeling coupled with selective memory get in the way of acknowledging that the present is a paradise for gamers and developers alike and that there is progress in overall game quality.

I don't agree with the argument that present games are too different from let's say 8bit games and therefore they can't or shouldn't be compared. This is besides my point. I made an assessment if game quality overall improved. Comparing is the bread and butter of thinking, we do it all the time. If it is impossible or a sin to compare games, then game developers and we players commit this sin daily. Who didn't compare the new Metroid Prime with the SNES Metroid?? :) Developers compare the games they're working on with previous games, prequels, and games of the same genre all the time. If it's possible to compare a present game with one released two years earlier, then it's also possible to compare games which cover a time span of 15 years. To say that games of a certain time are just "different" and unique, that technology changed so much, 2D vs. 3D etc., to say that games are dependent on technological conditions of their time and our perception and expectations is certainly true, but it doesn't say much; and if it is true that basically nothing changed so much in gameplay (same old, same old) - with which I disagree - then it should be even easier and an invitation to compare games and give an overall assessment of quality development.


Some pointed to the danger of conformity among games because development costs are so high which means that firms have to play it safe, or more in a cultural criticism trend, the "McDonaldization". That's only half of the truth. Sure, high development costs ensure an overall improvement of game quality and tends to make more conform games because of less risk- taking; but that's only half of the story!!! The fierce competition compel developers to offer something new, offer new experiences in lots of ways in order to set yourself apart from the rest of the pack BECAUSE more so than ever a good game can go unnoticed among so many good choices; and the prospect of incredible profit if you get one top hit (Grand Theft Auto, Final Fantasy X, Gran Turismo 3) which can make a firm financially sound for years to come doesn't hurt either. Again, competition is good for innovation; and there will be always games which offer something new and will be a commercial success, and there will be always sleeper hits.

No, it's not a disadvantage that videogames became big business and professionalized; the tremendous success story of videogames and it's resulting professionalization "only" comes with a more structured environment, market considerations, planning, more people involved developing games, game testing, and responsiveness to the market. Granted, 20 years ago game developers had overall more freedom to explore, faced less pressure, but this didn't result in more innovation or overall great games because the competition was less.

Game developers learn, from game to game, from year to year, from decade to decade. Right now it videogame paradise, we are spoiled with great games. However, the market is overheated, and will at one point calm down.

[lendelin]

@Yoshi, zachM, and others: I completely agree about Enter The Matrix. It's bad for the touted "revolution" between the movie and game industry in every aspect; becasue this game unfortunately sells well,other developers will follow the recipe "make a bad game, hire famous directors, neglect gameplay, and still make a profit." This game and its success is disadvantegous for the industry in every aspect.

What really bothered me were the hyped, distorted and shizophrenic reviews of this game in mags. GameInformer and Nintendo Power were just terrible, they explicitly recommended to buy a bad game becasue of the movie sequences!! That's plain awful. (only GamePro got it right) Gameplay is key, gameplay is key, gameplay is key, not movie sequences, graphics or sound. Movie sequences, graphics, and sound are merely very important( !) tools for gameplay, nothing more and nothing less. My evaluation of overall game quality in the last thirty years is also based on this belief.

[MarioAllStar2600]

it's so hard to find a good game with good replay value nowadays.

[Isometric_Bacon]

it's so hard to find a good game with good replay value nowadays.

It's because new games are more driven on story/progress today. As technology has advanced people have become used to extensive games that actually go somewhere, are story based, and the player works towards an eventual goal.

Gone are the days of arcade games and classics, where the main objective was to simply get the highest "score." The majority of today's generation are simply interested in passing all the levels, scoring whatever bonuses they can, and generally just progress through a game untill they get bored of it and purchase another title.

Whilst the modern genre of games is terrific, they're becoming more and more "scripted" (for lack of a better word) in that they have the same/or similar events happening each time you play, which turns off alot of people from replay value. This is probably why the recent "revolution" of gaming into this whole "free to do what you want" GTA style is becoming so popular. It's fun, and it creates a new experience everytime.

A good example is Splinter Cell. Awesome game on it's own right, but most casual gamers will run through it once, kill the guards in a certain way, and once it's over... it's over.
Sure, there are plenty of ways you could replay the game... try not to kill anyone, just incapacitate etc. But for the casual gamer, this isn't really a driving force anymore, and they'd much rather get into another game.

Myself however, even though i'm a product of the (relatively) new generation. (Born in 1985, Gamer throughout the 90's) I have a very wide taste in videogames. I still play all the 80's classics (Dig Dug, Pacman etc.) and I enjoy them just as much, if not more sometimes than modern games. Not only just for nostalgia reasons, just because they are generally well written games that are still fun to play today. Sure they might not have the depth of say, Halo. But there's something so addicting about trying to get past that damn level in Ghost's N' Ghouls that I can't put my finger on.

[YoshiM]

Lendelin: My working on the N64 section for DP never came up, plus I'm not one to toot my own horn. I don't think anyone in the community knew I had an online arcade either (it fell with Xoom).

Anyway, I think I don't have much ground to stand on about a market saturated with "good" games. I've been jaded waaay too long and seem to be stuck in a funk with most modern games not making me want to get my game on. It doesn't help that a string of games I rented for various modern systems stank while I bought games for my SNES I never played before and I had a blast. So that's perhaps skewing my view.

I WILL say, though, by stepping away from the Sony camp and looking at its competitors things are starting to get more interesting. Specifically I point this towards Xbox. It has its share of ports, but more interesting titles are starting to arrive. I've already mentioned KOTOR, which is a unique CRPG experience. Splinter Cell was a delightful surprise, as was Gunvalkrie, Morrowind, Otogi, Halo, and now upcoming games like Fable are showing that at least SOMEONE isn't resting on their hands and going with the rest of the flock. It's also a haven for FPS games and I'm such a sucker for a good FPS. :D

[lendelin]

"Isometric Bacon" pointed out that for years now the overall trend goes towards more complex and lengthier games at the cost of replay value. Absolutely true. I think this explains exactly the attraction of older games as a variety and niche to the current games. I'm sometimes amazed that some of my students know Joust or the first NES Castlevania, and when I ask them why they play these games it always comes out that they love their simplicity and straightforwardness. It would be very interesting to have reliable and specific socio-demographic data about these playing habits.

I doubt, however, these kind of games would be any commercial success today; development firms couldn't survive; as a niche offering, ok, but in a time with very different tastes and fast value change "our" games wouldn't stand a chance. I don't know how well Contra Shattered Soldier and Ikaruga did, but even a game like Super Mario Sunshine with a low ‘cool' factor didn't meet Nintendos sale expectations.

Yoshi, we are also a bit shizophrenic. We want something new and go back to the old. On the one hand we demand innovation and fresh ideas all the time and lament about their lack in current games, on the other hand we go back to very well known games which are twenty years old. Not a lot of gameplay innovation there when I play my old Metroid. Maybe there is a lack of innovation in us which rivals the lamented lack of innovation of the current games; or maybe we just cling to the values which these games represent in looks and feel and don't want to change.

I think that one additional aspect makes the current offerings of games better than the past, that is the responsiveness of the industry. We have not only the "cool" splashy flashy effects games with great gameplay value like Devil May Cry, Onimusha, and Final Fantasy X, but also games like REZ, Contra Shattered Soldier, Pikmin, Metroid Prime, Panzer Dragoon Orta, Everblue 2, Zelda WW and many others which take the needs of the so called ‘old school gamers" into account by reviving 2D gameplay or capturing the atmosphere of prequels. Yohi, as you said yourself, there are some great games on the Xbox, and the industry realized that profit can be made by satisfying our needs. Additionally, we can get a PS2 Gradius 3 and 4, or FF Origins because we can fondly look back at the incredible success story of videogames.

My point is, these offerings wouldn't be so varied and of this quality if the industry wouldn't have professionalized and became market oriented to such an extent (which comes at certain costs for sure). Prospects of big profits combined with a competitive environment(!) results in innovation, and we shouldn't demand from the present more than from the past, neither should we put the present under much more scrutiny. Only one market situation would spell doom - that is the situation of the industries crash in the 80s when a game earned big profits no matter which quality it had. Game developers and hardware manufacturers are as greedy or profit-oriented as they always were - but as a general rule they have to offer us something good before we give them our money.

[YoshiM]

::Sprinkles the contents of a musty bottle over the ground then raises his hands to the heavens, the sleeves of his tattered robe sliding down to reveal his arms and hands surrounded in a nimbus of blue, crackling energy::

"ARISE!!!!! COME FORTH FROM THE DEPTHS OF TIME LONG FORGOTTEN!!!"

Ok, this is probably the most necro of necrothreads ever but I was waxing nostalgic and found this thread deep in the abyss of the DP forum's past. A lot has changed in the game industry over the last twelve years while some trends stayed the same. What are some of the current members thoughts? I know I'll probably post my revised ideas when I can use a real keyboard.

I wonder if I will burn in some electronic version of Hell for delving this deep into the forum pile.....picking through the bones of lost posts....

[Nesmaster]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/b2/b201360d620983c28d6d5cc04e6dcd77849f588cf46b145b79 e53c713135de35.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OWoZf3gBTH4/U0c4pPWvaDI/AAAAAAAAAqA/AMYzcOd92wk/s1600/gamer-hoarding-meme.jpg
http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/788/aae/6d9/resized/resident-evil-4-merchant-meme-generator-ahhhh-i-ll-buy-it-at-a-high-price-999d9c.jpg?1335919939.jpg

About sums up classic and current for me.

[Gentlegamer]

::Sprinkles the contents of a musty bottle over the ground then raises his hands to the heavens, the sleeves of his tattered robe sliding down to reveal his arms and hands surrounded in a nimbus of blue, crackling energy::

"ARISE!!!!! COME FORTH FROM THE DEPTHS OF TIME LONG FORGOTTEN!!!"

Ok, this is probably the most necro of necrothreads ever but I was waxing nostalgic and found this thread deep in the abyss of the DP forum's past. A lot has changed in the game industry over the last twelve years while some trends stayed the same. What are some of the current members thoughts? I know I'll probably post my revised ideas when I can use a real keyboard.

I wonder if I will burn in some electronic version of Hell for delving this deep into the forum pile.....picking through the bones of lost posts....

If the sever goes offline it's your fault.

[Arkanoid_Katamari]

I love retro gaming but I'll be the first to admit the gaming industry has only gotten bigger and better. The genres aren't limited today that much either, how about Catherine? Or Katamari? There's lots of RPG's still released, 2d platformers still live on, tons of puzzle games like Bejeweled and all that, the regular FPS games, hack n slash games, I'm not seeing the limited genres today. If anything gaming has gotten bigger and better.

And thats what makes retro gaming so charming. Would a 1956 Corvette have the amount of charm today if cars were still built with that simplicity? The fact that gaming has evolved so much makes plugging in a Genesis controller that much more charming. Hey remember when controllers had wires??? Remember being 8 and trying to beat Ninja Gaiden?

Plus, do people expect technology to just stay in 1988? Video gaming would be dead if it stayed at that level.

[Tanooki]

Only a fool would expect the 80s never to die, but I think it's fair to say there needs to really be room for both types because they're widely different even if they go over the same general themes. Aside from no buttons, a lot of tablet games fall into the 80s and 90s mold of stuff and mix it with modern depending what you buy, and same can be said for the download/indie type stuff on whatever you use (PC, 3DS, PS4, etc.) The only argument I can think for better is you at one time never had to fight with a crappy camera and have a constant need to stop and look around as it was all straight up about the game play, not game play + dicking with the way you view it and see around within.

Duke Nukem 2 or Duke Nukem 3D. Same game in spirit, total different style.

[celerystalker]

I don't mind games changing, even if I don't enjoy them much by comparison nowadays. I just wish that in addition to new games, maybe someone other than indie programmers would work at developing and evolving old concepts and templates that still have a lot of room for growth. Some things I'd like to see:

A full-blown Castlevania: SOTN-style game with 2-4 player local or online play. Not like Harmony of Despair, but rather with different starting points and characters with different skills who could lower ropes for one another or trade weapons... access switches in different parts of the castle.

A JRPG with 2D 1 on 1 Street Fighter-style battles where equipment actually reflects on your sprite, and experience gives greater vitality, defense, and unlocks new specials. By the same token, evolving the concept of Little Ninja Bros. or Super Ninja Boy into something more playable.

Take a game like Armada for Dreamcast, but let me land and explore Gauntlet or Alien Syndrome-style, too.

I just feel like there's still room for growth in older frameworks and gameplay, and it'd be cool to get to play old 2D style games with the kind of scope their original technology limited instead of making yet another FPS, sandbox game, third-person shooter, or western RPG.

[Flojomojo]

I don't mind games changing, even if I don't enjoy them much by comparison nowadays. I just wish that in addition to new games, maybe someone other than indie programmers would work at developing and evolving old concepts and templates that still have a lot of room for growth. Some things I'd like to see:

A full-blown Castlevania: SOTN-style game with 2-4 player local or online play. Not like Harmony of Despair, but rather with different starting points and characters with different skills who could lower ropes for one another or trade weapons... access switches in different parts of the castle.

A JRPG with 2D 1 on 1 Street Fighter-style battles where equipment actually reflects on your sprite, and experience gives greater vitality, defense, and unlocks new specials. By the same token, evolving the concept of Little Ninja Bros. or Super Ninja Boy into something more playable.

Take a game like Armada for Dreamcast, but let me land and explore Gauntlet or Alien Syndrome-style, too.

I just feel like there's still room for growth in older frameworks and gameplay, and it'd be cool to get to play old 2D style games with the kind of scope their original technology limited instead of making yet another FPS, sandbox game, third-person shooter, or western RPG.
Get on mobile (iOS and to a somewhat lesser extent, Android), Steam, and Kickstarter. Indie developers without a lot of development money are mixing things up in interesting ways, many of which will never make it to consoles. Terrific indie games come out for the Vita all the time. Humble Bundles deliver lots of curated fun for as little as a dollar per week.

We have it better than any classic era could ever dream of ... we have two active and vibrant big-name handhelds, three big-name consoles, two aged but still-interesting consoles, myriad tablets and phones that can do amazing things, and if you still want to play old games, you can get a handheld or a laptop computer for around $200 that can easily play anything up to and including Dreamcast and Windows games. That's about $88 in 1984 money, and $133 in 1996 money.

We have network and storage options that can transmit and keep thousands of games for pennies a day, and multiplayer communities around the world so there's always someone to play with. If you're really lazy, you can just watch people play games on Twitch and YouTube. If you want to create your own games, development tools like Unity are powerful and cheap, and don't require multi-thousand dollar development workstations. Somewhere in the middle is the rich modding community, who have remade games like Skyrim into anything they want it to be.

Real VR is coming soon, but even so, we have large, cheap, high resolution flat panel displays, a plethora of good wireless controller options, surround sound, and great tech everywhere. A single $30 microSD card can hold the entire MAME catalog in addition to all the Star Wars games on GOG.

Anyone who complains about "games these days" just shows a lack of imagination and exploratory spirit. The technology and innovation behind even the worst MMORPG of 2015 is way ahead of anything we could have imagined in the age of Colecovision. If you don't like what you see, go make something better, because it's never been easier to do so.

[Tanooki]

I'd argue the storage thing is a huge negative in the long run. Its causing a problem the PC industry has caused for years which sucks but is far worse on a closed system -- updates. Releasing games in beta format to use full price guinea pigs to figure out what they didn't want to pay people to do, then release many patches to fix things. Old games you can always run a virtual machine or tweak to run on a new system, or even use DOS Box of all things and patches can always be found thanks to the internet. On a console, once the patch is pulled and the network is toast, you got a broke ass game you're stuck with. There's not so much wrong with games these days in as how they're handled and how consumers are mistreated compared to back then.

[celerystalker]

Get on mobile (iOS and to a somewhat lesser extent, Android), Steam, and Kickstarter. Indie developers without a lot of development money are mixing things up in interesting ways, many of which will never make it to consoles. Terrific indie games come out for the Vita all the time. Humble Bundles deliver lots of curated fun for as little as a dollar per week.

We have it better than any classic era could ever dream of ... we have two active and vibrant big-name handhelds, three big-name consoles, two aged but still-interesting consoles, myriad tablets and phones that can do amazing things, and if you still want to play old games, you can get a handheld or a laptop computer for around $200 that can easily play anything up to and including Dreamcast and Windows games. That's about $88 in 1984 money, and $133 in 1996 money.

We have network and storage options that can transmit and keep thousands of games for pennies a day, and multiplayer communities around the world so there's always someone to play with. If you're really lazy, you can just watch people play games on Twitch and YouTube. If you want to create your own games, development tools like Unity are powerful and cheap, and don't require multi-thousand dollar development workstations. Somewhere in the middle is the rich modding community, who have remade games like Skyrim into anything they want it to be.

Real VR is coming soon, but even so, we have large, cheap, high resolution flat panel displays, a plethora of good wireless controller options, surround sound, and great tech everywhere. A single $30 microSD card can hold the entire MAME catalog in addition to all the Star Wars games on GOG.

Anyone who complains about "games these days" just shows a lack of imagination and exploratory spirit. The technology and innovation behind even the worst MMORPG of 2015 is way ahead of anything we could have imagined in the age of Colecovision. If you don't like what you see, go make something better, because it's never been easier to do so.


I know about those kinds of indie projects. What I was saying is that I'd like to see an actual studio with a budget attempt that sort of thing. I am also aware that it's very unlikely, but I can dream. I haven't had an overly positive experience with indie developed games, and while I play portables and the like, I prefer my games on console.

Truthfully, I don't enjoy most modern games. I'm not a game developer, nor do I fancy myself as one. What I am is a player that likes what I like, regardless of scope or innovation. I'm okay with games being what they are, and I wouldn't deprive their fans of the experience. Grand scope does not make an MMO better than Donkey Kong, though. Each has their audience. It's okay for people to like what they want to, whether they're a skilled programmer or just a working person who doesn't have the time to be an amateur developer.

Technology allows for a lot of things, but by no means guarantees fun for all, and if everyone who has tastes that deviates from current trends just went with the flow, things would become stagnant. I don't feel like it's wrong to want to see old frameworks pushed, though, especially when acknowledging that it's more or less a personal fantasy and not an unrealistic expectation. People can continue to play The Last of Us and Grand Theft Auto all they want. I'll keep being the person who imports Strider on PS3 because it's on a disc and is in an old style I prefer, and we'll all be right to play what we want.

[YoshiM]

Get on mobile (iOS and to a somewhat lesser extent, Android), Steam, and Kickstarter. Indie developers without a lot of development money are mixing things up in interesting ways, many of which will never make it to consoles. Terrific indie games come out for the Vita all the time. Humble Bundles deliver lots of curated fun for as little as a dollar per week.

Yes, indie development has really grabbed the attention of the spotlight lately with many developers cranking out title after title. But that's the problem: you get the Johnny-Come-Coders who want to do their dream and then release a title that's not that good at all. Now multiply that by many many more "developers" that release these broken games, endless clones or just mediocre and it becomes difficult to sift through the chaff to find the wheat. It's no different than the big publishers, just more software.

The biggest thing with indies is that they CAN take a risk as they have no one to answer to (ie share holders) but themselves. Sometimes it pans out, others not so much.


We have it better than any classic era could ever dream of ... we have two active and vibrant big-name handhelds, three big-name consoles, two aged but still-interesting consoles, myriad tablets and phones that can do amazing things, and if you still want to play old games, you can get a handheld or a laptop computer for around $200 that can easily play anything up to and including Dreamcast and Windows games. That's about $88 in 1984 money, and $133 in 1996 money.

When haven't we had something like that?

Mid-to-late 1990's- Saturn, PSX, N64, SNES, Genesis, Game Boy, PCs with a ton of great titles you can buy cheap off the racks and demos galore online.

Early to mid 1980's- VCS, INTV, Coleco, C64, CoCo, TI, Apple.....

Early to mid 2000's- PS 2, DC, Gamecube, Xbox, GBA, PC and the last gens stuff going into the sunset.

Beyond the tablets and smartphones, we had games everywhere THEN. The only real difference is that gaming has become more of our lifestyles than ever before.


We have network and storage options that can transmit and keep thousands of games for pennies a day, and multiplayer communities around the world so there's always someone to play with. If you're really lazy, you can just watch people play games on Twitch and YouTube. If you want to create your own games, development tools like Unity are powerful and cheap, and don't require multi-thousand dollar development workstations. Somewhere in the middle is the rich modding community, who have remade games like Skyrim into anything they want it to be.

Real VR is coming soon, but even so, we have large, cheap, high resolution flat panel displays, a plethora of good wireless controller options, surround sound, and great tech everywhere. A single $30 microSD card can hold the entire MAME catalog in addition to all the Star Wars games on GOG.

Anyone who complains about "games these days" just shows a lack of imagination and exploratory spirit. The technology and innovation behind even the worst MMORPG of 2015 is way ahead of anything we could have imagined in the age of Colecovision. If you don't like what you see, go make something better, because it's never been easier to do so.

Online gaming seems to be only as good as the popularity of the title being played. From my experience, if you aren't on the latest mainstream game, the fewer the number of people are playing. And not everyone plays every game that's online capable. I ran into that back on the old XBL with games like Phantom Dust where it was a hopping place and then one day-nothing. Not a soul for over a week. Couple in the fact that servers for games get taken down and the pitch for multiplayer isn't as convincing.

And the number of titles-I don't know if anyone else runs into this but does anyone else think we have too much choice? Like going into a family restaurant with a gigantic menu and you look over it going "what the heck do I want?" Sure you have an idea but you sift through and go I could have that or that or that. If you were sure then the menu is moot as you know what you want right off the bat other than to see what variations of what you want the place offers.

A person can spend more time sorting through what's out there than actually playing.

[Tanooki]

Interesting breakdown by the decade.

If you exclude the obvious computers in all those decades, and the tablet/phone touch stuff now, this generation probably is the most restricted due to more lack of mainstream choice again by that listing. You have the WiiU and 3DS, Vita and PS4, and the One, and if you throw in the last generation in this decade still Wii, PS3, PSP, and the 360. If you look at what those offered then and what the stuff now does, again less. More of a lifestyle and with that less of a choice too because only so many things can trend at one time.

It is true that multiplayer is big these days, hell the last decade, but it does come at that cost -- whims of interest, and of the company. People move on, good luck with that if you don't want to. Company decides to pull the rug out, better pray some people setup an unofficial network to support it longer (like Phantasy Star Online got.) Multiplayer in a way is limiting choice in the long term for a short term rush by the consumer.

[YoshiM]

If the sever goes offline it's your fault.

You just HAD to say something, didn't you? ;)

[Gentlegamer]

You just HAD to say something, didn't you? ;)

And I was right.

[YoshiM]

Now as I'm waiting for a computer to rebuild I can type this out.

After a little over a decade, the game industry has seen many changes. As I mentioned in an earlier post, video games have become a part of mainstream life as a valid form of entertainment along with being an overall lifestyle from fashion to language. Since this original post we've seen two game generation changes, a shift in the delivery of games from physical to a mix of that and digital distribution and a new way to get our game on thanks to what has become a staple of everyday life for many: smart phones and tablets. During this time we've also seen the return and rise of the “garage”, now called “indie”, developers which have brought a tsunami of titles that hearken back to the games of the past to new concepts that address can address our emotions or make us aware of different causes or issues. The PC, after being hailed as a “dead platform”, is now seeing a renaissance in the game world thanks to said indies and the distribution center known as Steam.

From the games side of thing, it is now essentially a “whatever you want, it's probably out there” type of environment. It's mind boggling what one can find, from your usual evolutions of your favorite titles like Super Mario Bros to games that look and play like they came from the 80's to games that can only be classified as “experiences” like Uncharted, BioShock or Journey. There are even games that for those gamers that have certain, well, fetishes showing that the boundaries have all but disappeared.

From a social aspect gaming ranks up there with talking about the weather, sports or politics. For me growing up as a young teen during the NES days, you couldn't really talk about games with your peers in school as it was seen as kind of a “nerdy” thing to do. Of course the preps and the jocks played but you wouldn't get a confession out of them other than the deck was their sibling's. This could also be a phenomenon from where I lived so everyone's experiences may be quite different.

With all these things going for gaming, you'd think I'd be dancing in the streets. After this original post I really got into the Xbox and then the 360 when it came out. I didn't play classics all that much anymore, sticking to the newer stuff, consuming what games tickled my fancy. I was thinking Lendelin was right-gaming was better in the modern era.

Then I changed my mind....

Games now having to be patched on the day you buy them. SYSTEMS needing patching the first time you use them. Options that came with your game system being changed or removed whether you wanted that or not (the X360 Blade menus, Wii MP3 playback-if I recall and the PS3 Alternate OS option to name a couple) and if you don't, you can't use your machine online. Anonymous gamers online that have no tact, sportmanship or even a clean mouth. Then the media...oh man, the MEDIA! Since when did video games become so...so...DRAMATIC?! So, I dunno, Hollywood? Read gaming journalism from yesteryear and then read today's so-called articles-night and day difference. Thanks to them we start hearing about the real “cream of the crop” of gamers-the swatters, “GamerGate”, those who send out threats to developers and such, forcing them to escape with their lives.

This is not what I expected the future of gaming to go. While it's the best its ever been, it's also become the ugliest. The fan wars of Atari or Nintendo vs. Sega have nothing on what goes on today. Many of the popular games, at least for me, seem so “ho-hum” where you just plod forward. Then when you do find something you might like, beware reading about it because more than likely the article that's previewing it will give up a spoiler that can ruin what the developers have crafted as “an experience”. An article I read about Metroid Prime 3 did that to me when you face off against Ridley for the first time. Took the impact right out. Or a certain part of Call of Duty Modern Warfare while you are playing a character that is escaping the area in a helicopter-the emotional impact was lost.

Of course, this could all just come down to me. I've had a lot of changes happen to me in the twelve years since I first posted in this thread. I still love the history of our great hobby but it's hard for me to delve into the modern. It's too big, it's too much. My time goes elsewhere and when it comes to games, I tend to sit on the sidelines and watch my kid and my girlfriend's kids play Smash Bros on the Wii or serve up some justice playing TMNT on MAME with the OUYA.

And that's my 2 Zenny on this..or has inflation raised it to 4?

[YoshiM]

I'm on a roll...with other threads being brought back up, I looked up a few members I'd correspond with to see if any good threads came up and this one was a classic. Not quite legal at seventeen years old and the servers did go down when I rose this puppy back from the dead. Eh, what's a little more Reanimator juice in this husk's veins....

Reading back, I thought I'd be more flip-floppity on the topic. I found, as I age, REALLY want to see and like the new hub bub because, just maybe, I'm an old stick in the mud that just doesn't like new things because they are new and likes to yell at kids from his rocking chair on the porch (well, I do like to yell at the kids, but, that's another story). The PS3/360/Wii era was pretty special for me in regards to games. I could enjoy them offline, with people online (even bought two different copies of "Battlefield 1942" for Xbox 360 and PSN to play with different folks), on a boat, with a goat, etc. I even dabbled more into PC games like "Dear Ester", "To the Moon", "Batman-Arkham Asylum", "Amnesia", "Rocket League" and the usual short foray into an Elder Scrolls game (as I never seem to get far before I just peter out). Then I moved to portable because my gaming time at home, heck, my COMPUTER time at home, is very short. I tasted the retro-goodness of "Shovel Knight", ripped through "Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds", played some "Blaster Master: Zero", dabbled in some Vita titles (like the Killzone game to get my FPS fix....then my elder kids wanted to play "Legend of Dragoon" and I haven't seen my Vita since, which is OK).

However, what gets the most attention in my sparce gaming time? "The Legend of Zelda" (beat the first quest), "Zelda 2: Adventure of Link"(just got past the Island palace), started up "Super Mario World" (never really played it). I bought an N64 and a flash cart to play Super Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie, Goldeneye 007. I scrounged up a CRT TV that was in storage and found how much nicer it was to play real hardware on its intended display and how much better I played on it (I CRUSHED the second dungeon in "Kid Icarus" as opposed to dying a lot on the NES Classic). I still do play some games from the early 2000's, like Metroid Prime Hunters on my DSi XL (I don't like playing DS games on my 3DS-just doesn't look right).

With Humble Bundles I have tried more "indie" stuff. I got through "A Short Hike", which was Animal Crossing light. It was cute but ultimately I had to get to the end as I didn't want to wander anymore. Games by Fued keep my attention, like "Burger Lord", as it's a neat twist to a classic game that still LOOKS classic. But the hotness like "Papers, Please", "Overwatch" and such....I can't say I'm drawn. I have a rig that can play that stuff but the glitz, the buzz, the push doesn't thrill me. Add to the fact that the game you play months from now is not going to be the same game you played at the beginning puts me off. With my beloved Animal Crossing seemingly heading in that direction, I'm not buying a Switch anytime soon.

[WelcomeToTheNextLevel]

I feel like period between about 1998-2009 was a sort of "golden age" for video games. I find the history of video games in the earlier days to be highly interesting; how they were technically designed given the more limited hardware, how they were marketed and how the industry developed. But as for as the games that are most fun to PLAY, I find that the late '90s to late '00s has the highest concentration of just outright fun experiences. When this thread was created 17 years ago, we were right in that golden age. Don't get me wrong, I like plenty of games older than 1998 and newer than 2009.

Leading up to about the early 2000s, technological progress made games richer and more fun experiences with each passing generation. The OP touches on a lot of good points showing the evolution of the video game industry up to 2003. Up to that point, each new generation offered something substantially new, something that made games that much better. By the early 2000s, graphics had gotten good enough to where, while not photorealistic, they were good enough to make well-detailed, rich, engaging environments, and the 3D no longer looked muddy and low-detail like it had just a few years earlier. Game budgets were big, but still small enough that even midsize studios got their games on PS2/Xbox/GCN discs; "mainstream" and "indie" weren't quite so separated. It was a creative golden age. Best of all, when you bought a game, it was all there. No patches (except on PC), no online requirements, just a disc, a system, memory cards, and a controller.

What advancements have we really had since about 2007 or so? By the Xbox 360/PS3/Wii era (the tail end of the golden age, in my opinion), we already had graphics and sound that looked pretty damn close to what we have over a decade later in 2020. We've hit a law of diminishing returns on that front. After decades of moving forward, I feel like things really were better for video games in the 2000s than they are today. In the "golden age" online multiplayer was a thing, but it was a facet of gameplay, something extra that could add to the experience of some games. Today it's gone too far, with some games even requiring part of them to be downloaded, even if you have the disk. Many games have been created with the online experience being the ONLY thing considered, completely ignoring the single player experience (the new Battlefront II being an infamous example). There seems to be little creativity in mainstream video games, what with the budgets ballooning from big to ridiculous.
On top of that, mobile gaming. Phones are good for simple experiences like Candy Crush, puzzle/word games, etc. But mobile gaming has killed off handheld consoles (except for the Switch, which is a hybrid), indie gaming studios which ARE producing unique content produce a good chunk on mobile. I'm sorry but I don't want to play long, complex, narrative driven games on a fucking phone with a touch screen.
Not everything about the video game world of 2020 is bad, but it's a definite decline from the past.

[Gameguy]

On top of that, mobile gaming. Phones are good for simple experiences like Candy Crush, puzzle/word games, etc. But mobile gaming has killed off handheld consoles (except for the Switch, which is a hybrid), indie gaming studios which ARE producing unique content produce a good chunk on mobile. I'm sorry but I don't want to play long, complex, narrative driven games on a fucking phone with a touch screen.
The thing with mobile phones is that instead of playing games on the go, I'd rather just watch something on youtube or browse the internet instead of actually play a game. Are people really playing games portably anymore? At least compared to before portable internet existing?

[YoshiM]

The thing with mobile phones is that instead of playing games on the go, I'd rather just watch something on youtube or browse the internet instead of actually play a game. Are people really playing games portably anymore? At least compared to before portable internet existing?

I see and hear kids playing games on phones, maybe the 6-10 crowd. Any child over that age I see a lot of thumb moving or tapping, so that could be communication. Adults I see on the go tend to communicate or surf it seems with the rare video watch. But that's just from my slice of the world, the rest of the pie may vary.

I do not see Switches or any other distinct gaming handheld used "in the wild". Once, maybe last year I saw a mom pull a switch out of a bag for their child.

[calthaer]

What a fascinating thread...for example:


Well naturally. I sure as heck hope that in the year 2023 people won't be making arguments as to how the Xbox/ps2/GC games from 2003 are NOT better than the "current" batch of games. Heck we BETTER have better games by then or something is friggin wrong! LOL

...it really amuses me that this, written back in 2003, is now only two years away.


With Humble Bundles I have tried more "indie" stuff...But the hotness like "Papers, Please", "Overwatch" and such....I can't say I'm drawn. I have a rig that can play that stuff but the glitz, the buzz, the push doesn't thrill me. Add to the fact that the game you play months from now is not going to be the same game you played at the beginning puts me off.

It's true; Indie games can be very hit-or-miss. There is so much stuff on Steam that weeding through all of it can be a daunting task. The nice thing is that things are cheap - if you go to town during a Summer Sale, you can pick up 10 games for < $50. If a quarter of those end up being really good, I consider that a win. It doesn't dole out money according to how great the game is, unfortunately, but it does mean that I'm paying about what I'd expect to pay for the great ones. For games that I like to play, I often find that the Indie scene is the only one churning these out. For whatever reason, AAA studios are still stuck in 3D land and refuse to make anything 2D. Nintendo might be an exception? But the most recent console I own from them is a Wii and a DSi "big" (whatever it was called - the larger version).

Appreciate the note on "Papers, Please". It looks experimental...maybe people gush about it because it's making a "statement" through the gameplay? It embeds "moral choices" into its design? That gets people all riled up...whether it's fun or not is a different matter.

The Indie games I've loved (I define this as "Finishing the game" or playing the heck out of it if it has no end - any game that holds my interest that long is a winner) over the past decade+ that have been actually fun have been (in no particular order):
Aquaria
Bastion
Transistor
Dead Cells (love this one - it's like SotN turned up to 11)
Fez
Kingdom: Classic + New Lands
Double Dragon Neon (not really "indie" I suppose, but maybe for Capcom it was experimental)
Runespell: Overture
FTL
Into the Breach
Invisible, Inc.
Thea: The Awakening (I'll admit this one may be an acquired taste)
The Vanishing of Ethan Carter
Soulcaster
Hand of Fate
Terraria
Firewatch
Dex
Waking Mars

There are a few others in my Steam library that I haven't tried so far. The only AAA release I can think of that has gotten as much play as any of these has been Civ VI - that has been really fun and I love it. Maybe I'm not giving them enough of a chance because they're so expensive.

Point is...I think gaming is as good as it ever was. When I go to pick up my NES controller, it seems like a huge step down compared to any of the games I just listed - with a few of the absolute greats like Super Mario Bros. 3 being a notable exception. I can't honestly sit here and say "They don't make 'em like they used to" - not in the sense that phrase is used. It's true, they don't - I think they make things BETTER. The problem today isn't in having better games than before, it's in finding them amidst all the mediocre or bad.

[YoshiM]

The Indie games I've loved (I define this as "Finishing the game" or playing the heck out of it if it has no end - any game that holds my interest that long is a winner) over the past decade+ that have been actually fun have been (in no particular order):
Aquaria
Bastion
Transistor
Dead Cells (love this one - it's like SotN turned up to 11)
Fez
Kingdom: Classic + New Lands
Double Dragon Neon (not really "indie" I suppose, but maybe for Capcom it was experimental)
Runespell: Overture
FTL
Into the Breach
Invisible, Inc.
Thea: The Awakening (I'll admit this one may be an acquired taste)
The Vanishing of Ethan Carter
Soulcaster
Hand of Fate
Terraria
Firewatch
Dex
Waking Mars

There are a few others in my Steam library that I haven't tried so far. The only AAA release I can think of that has gotten as much play as any of these has been Civ VI - that has been really fun and I love it. Maybe I'm not giving them enough of a chance because they're so expensive.

Point is...I think gaming is as good as it ever was. When I go to pick up my NES controller, it seems like a huge step down compared to any of the games I just listed - with a few of the absolute greats like Super Mario Bros. 3 being a notable exception. I can't honestly sit here and say "They don't make 'em like they used to" - not in the sense that phrase is used. It's true, they don't - I think they make things BETTER. The problem today isn't in having better games than before, it's in finding them amidst all the mediocre or bad.

I read that list and was like "Oh yeah, I have Bastion. I only got so far and then got distracted by something else." Even when I loaded up my Franken-laptop with Windows 10 recently, I loaded Bastion but only got as far as I did before. Something always comes up and then I don't think about it. Firewatch I'm currently playing when I can on the Friday "game night" with headphones tightly on so the kids don' t hear the language. This is one of those new "games" I like-it pulls me into the story and I want to interact with it more. It actually has dialog options I myself would probably say, which is a bonus. I don't know how "far" I'm into it play wise, but I'm investigating a fenced in section of the park, to lessen any spoilers. I can't seem to wrap my brain around FTL.

Yeah, there IS a lot of stuff out there, which really makes it hard for the cream to rise to the top.

[calthaer]

I can't seem to wrap my brain around FTL.

FTL is hard at first. It seems really random and unfair. My initial review for it on Steam was negative.

It helped to read a walkthrough. There are certain techniques / tricks that make everything a lot easier - knowing which equipment to buy and which crewmembers to hire / find is essential (they are not created equal) and, without a walkthrough, can take a lot of experimentation. To begin with: your initial runs aren't supposed to be successful...you're supposed to unlock more ships and crew members, THEN find a combo with one of those to beat the game. Winning the game with that ship they start you with is really hard; there are many other ships that make it a lot easier.

Once I figured that out, it clicked for me and I enjoyed it. Same thing with "Into The Breach" by the same developers. Very hard, initially - then I unlocked some more things and won the game with one of those. I didn't go through again and again to unlock everything.

Some of these "indie" games will click with certain players and not with others. BIT.TRIP RUNNER was one that a lot of people love; I kind of got bored with the arcade action of it. La Mulana seemed needlessly hard. Hated "Dear Esther".

I guess I also liked Cave Story and Braid, though - they were great. Kero Blaster was also amazing...Risk of Rain I liked...Westerado was really fun. Mark of the Ninja was great. I forgot to mention a lot. Almost all the best games from the last two decades that I've loved have come from small developers.

[Canija]

Great post. I agree with you 100%. :D I still play classic games now and then (one every week, for sure), but 90 percent of my gaming money is spent on modern games, which (https://skycoach.gg/wow-boost/powerleveling) I play at least every day. :-D And it's not like I'm a 'new' gamer either -- I cut my teeth on the 2600 and grew up with a NES as my first love. Just as I've goten older and games have gotten better, the modern games (the 'current' games) have kept me coming back time and time again. Maybe that trend will change in a few years as I approach my late 20's.....I'm not sure. Many people may not have time to play a modern game -- that's fine, I understand that. For me, I MAKE time if the game is good enough. And is the game fun -- that's STILL the most important question. Always has been, always will be!

Same here :) I stick to classic games too. It is also true about movies and music. these things used to be made imaginatively but now developers/creators think 1st of all about money feedback.