netstrider

[Log in to get rid of this advertisement]

I'm not a big gamer myself at all. In fact the last game I played was Def Jam on the PS2 (which I don't even own). The Last PC game I played was Wormux (just to test it out). And that's all I've played since the beginning of 2008.

It's as if something is missing which I long for... something the old titles used to have.. King's Quest, Flight of the Amazon Queen, Duke Nukem.. etc. etc.

There's really nothing unique about today's games to me. It was Doom back in the 1990's and development on Doom 4 started on the 7th of May 2008. Nothing has changed.. except the graphics, sounds, guns etc. Perhaps a nifty "feature" here and there but that's it. Games don't make me stick infront of my screen the whole day like they used to, they're not intriguing.. just not interesting.

I'm sure I'm not the only person feeling like this, am I? What are your thoughts on this.. please elaborate.

PS: Am not talking about Windows/.Xbox/Playstation/Nintendo/Linux etc. games but games and the gaming industry as a whole.

Jeebizz

I couldn't agree more on how you feel about games today. I haven't really played any 'current' games since 04, and even by then most of the games were just all graphics and no real content to me. I remember playing King's Quest too, and these days you don't really see anymore point and click adventure games like that anymore. My favorite point and click games were the Discworld series. Man, games back then were art. The graphics may not have been so 'flashy', but even for what was available, it was by far much better than what is out today. Actually, I think there is a current version of Sam & Max, one of the last bastion of funny and interesting games.

I never played Doom3, and I am rather surprised there is going to be a Doom4. I prefer the classic Doom, which can still be played via the Doomsday project (Google it), all you need is the original wad files, and you can play the game in it's original graphics or more current graphics. It is still better than whats out today. I never got into Quake, or UT or Half Life. Just don't care for it. Even when I first played the very first Quake. It didn't seem like a multiplayer game, but at the same time there weren't a whole lot from the levels, and didn't have a real plot, so to me it felt like a demo rather than a completed game. Then Quake 'evolved' into the multiplayer game, but by then I already lost interest.

These days I don't bother with PC gaming. I don't feel it is worth the time and effort. There is too much to worry about, and if I really wanted to game again, I would rather get a console, and not have to worry about sys. resources and other things. I still have my eye on getting a Wii, I want to try that Nights game that was released for it. I remember that from the Sega Saturn.

Actually, I still find myself playing the old console games, whether by emulation or by real thing. Well, the only real console I have is the SNES and an obscure 32-bit console, the 3DO. I am rather fond of that console. I did have a PSone and 2, but I got rid of the PS1, and the PS2 died suddenly without much use.

It was nice while it lasted, but I suppose all good things do come to an end. I don't see games getting all that interesting any time soon. Everything is just based on how 'cool' the graphics are and how many effects can be put at a certain number of frames per second. Pff, big deal!

And I can't help but just criticize MMORPGs. Well, for that matter even any other game that can be played online. I remember being able to play a nice game of StarCraft years ago, now Battlenet is full of cheaters and spammers, and now you have to pay a subscription fee just to play, and still have to deal with that? Fsck it! Face it, gaming just isn't worth it anymore.

kessler961

i cant play games anymore, i once played metal gear solid for 18 hours straight and came off it feeling absolutely empty inside, it was a horrible feeling. now i just play tetris, love it. ill play it on a constant level so it doesnt go any faster as i get more rows, so it never stresses me, then when ive had my fill of slotting bricks together ill turn it off and go do something else

SCerovec

I think it's about the change of the world :-(

...
out there, there are no more kids dreaming about "Making a game; selling it rich; having a PC in every room of a hi-lux villa on Havay" :-(, like there used to be in 80's and 90's (us? ;-) ) ...

As the number of those kids fell to zero, the games became hardware-hugs and ever boring mega-demos of GL and DX. Re-cheving over and over the same old dog-food all over and again.
:-(

The era of dream-inducing scenarios/games is long-past-behind.

The only tiny hope left is in the OSF arena IMO.

OTOH most 'dreaming' kids nowadays get 'tar-pit'ed in massive online-games/mods/mod-developments and are lost for any original/published-payed work...
:-(

"they" finally made it - there is zero danger of a really fresh title in 2008.
:-(


I'm so sad now, and going back to my power-manga turn...

best regards.

BTW
1. If there where an engine worth themeing/scripting
2. modular and expendable
3. GNU-licenced
...

remember its IMAGINATION that counts and ATMOSPHERE that attracts...

dv502

Today's games don't appeal to me. They focus to much on graphics and realism and less on entertainment, some are fun though.

I like the games that I played in the 80s and 90s, the graphics were ok or average, but game play was fun. And, if you were a kid in the 80s or 90s you know what those games were. I hardly play games anymore, but I did install MAME to play some of my favorite games when things are slow.

frenchn00b

wait maybe the 3d glasses and the gloves
maybe one day, we'll have a chip in the body, like a ipod ... who hasnt a small ipod, cell phone, ... or whatever in his pocket duirng shopping ... ?

SlowCoder

I want to USE the tools, not BE the tools! I realize there are medicinal reasons for cybernetic implants (pace makers, artificial knee/bone replacement, etc.), but it scares me to think about the implications of electronics being inside my body.

Heck, we still haven't gotten over the whole "cell phones cause cancer" thing. They recommend that users carry their phones on a clip outside the pants, rather than directly next to the body or in the pocket because the radiation *could possibly* cause cancer. This is just an example. What will we find out when these devices are installed INSIDE our bodies? "ABC Company has found that a small number of their implants contain a radiation leak, and have issued a voluntary recall for the following models ... If you own one of these models, please visit your local implant surgeon for removal of the device ASAP. Thank you."

Besides, what happens when you get tired of that model? You then have to go in for an upgrade?

As far as games go, I still play games, but in many cases, I get to see them from a child's perspective. My son, 6 years old, is experiencing games for the first time. I may not like some games for myself, but they are a bunch more fun when I get to play them with him.

ErV

"Glasses and a glove" isn't much fun, IMHO. A full VR suit with glasses would be more interesting. It could be also used for something like fighting simulator, where you'll receive good physical training (martial arts, movement, etc.) during the game.

frenchn00b

[quote=SlowCoder;3148379]I want to USE the tools, not BE the tools! I realize there are medicinal reasons for cybernetic implants (pace makers, artificial knee/bone re ..QUOTE]



Are you sure about this, cancer??
damn my cell phone is permanently to my hears or in my pants... damn damn

SlowCoder

Heh. No. That's just a theory that's been going around since the dawn of cell technology. That I know of, there's not actually proof that it does cause cancer.

easuter

I've also heard that you're not supposed to carry a phone in a chest pocket because it could cause cardiac arrhythmia.
Dont know if that is just another urban legend (like cell phones and gas stations), or if it actually has a real base to it...

oskar

I think it's selective memory, and the fact that many of us were kids in the 90's and have just grown out of the gaming market. The only thing I don't like is that point and click adventures are basically gone.
But there was some innovative stuff in the past years. I think Silent Hill - at least the parts that I played were pure genius. GTA and the like are opening up more and more possibilities.
The greatest thing, I think is that hobby game projects become more and more attractive. Maybe I wasn't that aware of it in the past, but I don't think there was anything like the modding and open-source game programming community that there is today.
Like Spring:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MpKqQxTURik

I guess Nexuiz and Warsow need no introduction - and while they are not terribly innovative, they have done a lot of things better than similar commercial games.
The new Zak Mc Kracken - unfortunately only available in german right now - also a pure fan-community project:
http://www.zak2.org/

With most things it looks like it was better in the past - movies, music, books. I think it's because you don't remember all the crap anymore. When you think 60's you think Hendrix and Joplin, and not Yummy yummy yummy, I got love in my tummy...

If I had to sum up the memorable games this decade so far it would be:
Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Larry7, Half Life 2, Quake Arena, The GTA series, Max Payne... I would like to see adventures coming back, but that's about it.
Only multiplayer games just exploded.
And if you have a great idea for a game - it has never been easier. There are some very powerful very high level languages, and you can start your own project, or contribute to an existing one.

frenchn00b

chest pocket = not good
trousers pocket = not good either ...
well, where to put this mobile ? someone has any idea? maybe there is mobiles designed low radiations ...

ErV

Well, is there proof that it doesn't cause cancer?

That's not only because of selective memory. I've started playing PC games somewhere near 2001 (got my own normal PC - i.e. something more advanced than ZX-Spectrum), and first game that I really played and finished were relatively advanced - Quake2, Quake3 (Fallout 2). Of course I've also *seen* Doom1, Heretic, Quake 1 until I've got my own modern computer. The problem is that after playing a lot of first-person-shooters, strategies, and RPGs I've come to conclusion that some of the old games often beats newer modern ones. For example, I've played a lot of (more graphically-advanced) FPS games before I've got and completed Doom 1, and I still think that Doom 1 beats many newer FPS-es.

Disagree. Today's games demand a lot of work from modelers and designers (they are the ones who do most work), programming won't help here. Problem is that any person who'll want to make game, will also make game that will be up-to-date with (unofficial) video quality standart. The new ("standart") technologies (lighting, bump, shadows, physics, HDR, etc.) are almost requirement for everything. Most gamedev beginner teams will want to use those "standart" technologies, will spend a lot of time utilizing those technologies, and will fail to make anything in the and, because every such technology will require additional work. For example, for a Quake 2 - style lighting, one texture per character will be enough. For Q4 - style lighting, you'll have to make up to 3 (or more) textures (diffuse map, normal map, specular color map, with optional support for opacity/shininess/specular power channels, and maybe one more channel for detail map), and this will require a lot of additional work. So any beginner's project that is centered around "rendering quality" instead of gameplay and story, will most likely fail/die. Also those technologies limit engine abilities (1 character with a good might cost as much as 2..5 of similar characters with worse image quality (simply no bump, for example)). So, the more graphically advanced engine is, the smaller will be environment ("huge open" scene based hight maps doesn't count.), the less will be number of opponents in sight, etc. For example, if I want scenes where up to 50 opponents are immediately visible on the screen. The only I can thing about that provide such ability is operation flashpoint. And why there is no machine-generated worlds anymore? Elite generated a galaxy, why no one ever tried to build town (or entire planet, it IS possible) using same algorithm in a commercial-quality FPS?

So (IMHO) the problem is that game industry turned into some kind of "hollywood" - technologies are standard, genres and stories are standard (standard stories for FPS: "Anti-terrorist", "World War 2", "Cop revenge" (max payne, punisher), "Tropical island", "Fighting demons or hellspawn", "aliens", etc. sometimes gamemakers combines that, so someday someone might make game where player will fight terrorists, aliens AND hellspawns on a tropical island during the world war 2.), so although the picture/visual quality is often very high, game itself in most cases has no soul, provides no good challenge, and is generally boring - also because most opponents in FPS today loudly announce where they are, what will they do next(standard "grenade!!" cry, for example), and now there is a tradition of regenerating player's health (Call of Duty since part 2) and putting unlimited ammo supplies near bosses.

I wrote this just because I've recently upgraded videocard (had to do it, since I'm working with 3D graphics programming) from GeForce 7100 to GeForce 8400. Now I can play most of newer games (bioshock included), but it looks like there simply is nothing worth playing. I've played Jericho and was disappointed by the bad gameplay and silly story. Crysis demo seemed boring from beginning (another FarCry. I hate tropical islands in FPS.). Same about bioshock demo - not really interesting, although picture quality is very good. I must admit that I've liked Half-Life 2, but it looks like they've lost something important when they started making "episodes".

I really wish that game developers stopped running after "(photo)realism", picture quality and money and concentrated on gameplay instead. Examples. For me games with worse graphics but a good story, world, etc provide more enjoyment, even if graphical part is really limited. For example, fighting 5 pixelated werefolf sprites with 5-frame animation in dungeons of Daggerfall were much scarier that killing legions of trolls in Oblivion, or than shooting off legions of "horrible" monsters in Jericho/Doom 3/Quake 4. That's because in case of pixelated sprite you'll imagine your own personal werewolf (potentially more scary) that'll be loosely based on the sprite, while in case of high-poly model you'll see just another bot to kill. In this sense rogue-like games and interactive fiction games are much interesting...

frenchn00b

There is prooves of many contents of crap food that we are daily eating ; but nobody does anythg. Companies keep seeling, and aiming & profiting of the poorest people of the population.