When did you lose respect for the gaming business?

Forums > Game Talk > When did you lose respect for the gaming business?

Chris Wright (85) on 2/20/2011 5:57 PM · Permalink · Report

I'm gonna say 2002, after I finished with EverQuest. The next few games I played a lot were Jedi Academy, Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced, Final Fantasy XI, and Halo: Combat Evolved. I loved the last one, but that was more of an exception. Back in the 90s it seemed I nearly always had something great to play.

I will admit that me going from 15 to 30 has a lot to do with it of course.

Zovni (10502) on 2/20/2011 6:15 PM · Permalink · Report

The day Origin died. (No really, regardless of the fanboyism, it was the day I really had my eyes opened to the rampant consumerism and heartless corporate machinations that drive the industry).

Indra was here (20745) on 2/21/2011 2:46 AM · Permalink · Report

When Zovni confessed he was gay. Oh, wait...that was the other guy. :p

The introduction of 3D graphics: less story, less gameplay, less depth, more clunky.

Zovni (10502) on 2/21/2011 3:04 AM · Permalink · Report

huh.... love you too Indra?

Indra was here (20745) on 2/21/2011 3:06 AM · Permalink · Report

Too late. The other guy said it first. :p

Slug Camargo (583) on 2/21/2011 5:16 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Indra was here wrote--] The introduction of 3D graphics: less story, less gameplay, less depth, more clunky. [/Q --end Indra was here wrote--] I understand that the whole "jaded old timer" act makes your balls feel big and whatnot, but there is not one rational point to hold that statement up. Gaming has gotten better and better as technology moved forward, and that's just straight out fact. Sure, there are a gazillion examples of lazy-design AAA cashcows all around, but there are also enough great games to debunk your beloved line without even trying.

Seriously, what's the name of that balls-flatteningly fantastic game you played circa 1989 which had such depth and controlled so smoothly and had such complex gameplay and such a great story? I'm going out on a limb here and say that game never even existed as a fantasy.

Here, let's try this: Name a pre-3D-era RPG as deep as, say, The Witcher. A pre-3D-era shooter with better gameplay than, say, Singularity. A pre-3D-era platformer that controls better than, say, Sands of Time. Any pre-3D-era game with better writing than, say, Mass Effect. A horror game more immersive than Amnesia: The Dark Descent (I'm sure you can think of your own examples in strategy games, I wouldn't touch those with an augmented broomstick D: ).

Hell, try to find one pre-3D-era game /in any genre/ that comes as close to the Holy Grail of perfect execution as Arkham Asylum does --back then it was simply impossible to even imagine a game like that.

In fact, right now, in these very months we're living in, we might just be at the most exciting point in the entire history of gaming, with a handful of very talented indie programmers showing the world just how easy and profitable it can be to simply, literally follow your dream --on your own, without big budgets or AAA publishers or anything. The aforementioned Amnesia being a prime example. And I'm sure you heard of a little something called Minecraft.

Hell, even adventure games, the most stubborn, stale of all genres might make a surprising comeback, if Jonathan Blow is to be believed (and the guy invented Braid so he certainly has some good credits to back him up).

Indra was here (20745) on 2/21/2011 5:41 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--] [Q2 --start Indra was here wrote--] The introduction of 3D graphics: less story, less gameplay, less depth, more clunky. [/Q2 --end Indra was here wrote--] [1] I understand that the whole "jaded old timer" act makes your balls feel big and whatnot, but there is not one rational point to hold that statement up. Gaming has gotten better and better as technology moved forward, and that's just straight out fact. Sure, there are a gazillion examples of lazy-design AAA cashcows all around, but there are also enough great games to debunk your beloved line without even trying.

[2] Seriously, what's the name of that balls-flatteningly fantastic game you played circa 1989 which had such depth and controlled so smoothly and had such complex gameplay and such a great story? I'm going out on a limb here and say that game never even existed as a fantasy.

[3] Here, let's try this: Name a pre-3D-era RPG as deep as, say, The Witcher. A pre-3D-era shooter with better gameplay than, say, Singularity. A pre-3D-era platformer that controls better than, say, Sands of Time. Any pre-3D-era game with better writing than, say, Mass Effect. A horror game more immersion than Amnesia: The Dark Descent (I'm sure you can think of your own examples in strategy games, I wouldn't touch those with an augmented broomstick D: ). [/Q --end Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--] [1] True. But only after they released the third patch of their bug infested games.

[2] LucasArts did fine job. Though, the majority of my all-time favorite games are pre-3D games.
325 nerds likes this
:p

[3] You mean after they released their third patches? Dunno. There weren't that many patched games in 1989. :p

I'm currently immersed playing an ASCII-based game right now. My over-active imagination does not require much graphical requirements for entertainment. Though, I doubt that's something a Prince of Persia 3D fanboi would understand. cough :p

BurningStickMan (17916) on 2/21/2011 5:46 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--]

Here, let's try this: Name a pre-3D-era RPG as deep as, say, The Witcher. - Fallout or Fallout 2.

A pre-3D-era shooter with better gameplay than, say, Singularity. - Doom?

A pre-3D-era platformer that controls better than, say, Sands of Time. - Out of This World or Flashback.

Any pre-3D-era game with better writing than, say, Mass Effect. - Does Planescape: Torment count? Are we saying 2000 for the 3D era?

A horror game more immersive than Amnesia: The Dark Descent - Sanitarium. [/Q --end Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--]

For my money, there have been excellent games throughout the years, and terrible games throughout the years. Things have gotten better - technology was pretty much entirely what allowed GTA3 to be far better than 1 or 2. But many old games haven't become obsolete or have been outdone yet either.

Zovni (10502) on 2/21/2011 2:20 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--] Here, let's try this: Name a pre-3D-era RPG as deep as, say, The Witcher. A pre-3D-era shooter with better gameplay than, say, Singularity. A pre-3D-era platformer that controls better than, say, Sands of Time. Any pre-3D-era game with better writing than, say, Mass Effect. A horror game more immersive than Amnesia: The Dark Descent (I'm sure you can think of your own examples in strategy games, I wouldn't touch those with an augmented broomstick D: ). [/Q --end Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--]

Well mr. Katze I agree with what you said. But let's not jump to the other extreme so eagerly. I haven't played games like Singularity or Amnesia (looks good btw!) but I can challenge most of those games. It's not a question of fanboyism, but the notion that technological advances equal better games all by itself is as blindly wrong as Indra's idea that "everything was better on the 8-bit days!"

Indra was here (20745) on 2/21/2011 2:42 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Zovni wrote--]It's not a question of fanboyism, but the notion that technological advances equal better games all by itself is as blindly wrong as Indra's idea that "everything was better on the 8-bit days!" [/Q --end Zovni wrote--]Oh, but it is better. At least it was less annoying:

No annoying bug patches that still don't work after its 5th patch;
No annoying DRM and copy protection that screws yer PC;
No annoying online activation which still doesn't protect squat anyway;
No annoying this game will self destruct after 2 installations;
No annoying clunky 3D graphics by 'just graduated' graphic designers that interfere with gameplay;
No annoying overprices games with a 5 page manual;
No annoying action-adventure games :p
No annoying Windows stupid registry system;
No annoying you must have a $100,000 PC with a graphics card from NASA to make this game work properly requirement;
No annoying we cut the story and game mechanics because we were focusing on the 3D graphics and didn't bother to play test it either reasoning;

Seriously. I have a Ph.D. in whining. :p

Zovni (10502) on 2/21/2011 3:07 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Indra was here wrote--] Seriously. I have a Ph.D. in whining. :p [/Q --end Indra was here wrote--]

Very well earned I see. Anyways, I think you are forgetting about such joys as wasting hours with autoexec.bat, config.sys and emm loaders trying to get a game you just bought to work. Having to check for a manual entry EVERY time you play your game in most cases. And sorry, but hardware is continually becoming cheaper and cheaper, a top of the line computer to play the latest crysys 6 at max settings today means at worst spending around 300usd or more on a decent cpu+gpu combo (which is not something you need to do, mind you, a point most grognards seem to forget is that most top-of the line games feature extensive scaling options that will allow them to be run on most clunkers). Upgrading your system to play Wing Commander back in the day meant forking double that just to get it to play.

Patches were still around back in the day, only you had to spend ages downloading them from BBS's and genre stagnation and derivative gameplay were just as prevalent back in the day as they are today.

Игги Друге (46646) on 2/24/2011 12:29 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Zovni wrote--] I think you are forgetting about such joys as wasting hours with autoexec.bat, config.sys and emm loaders trying to get a game you just bought to work.[/Q --end Zovni wrote--]

I don't remember any of that since I wasn't stupid enough to use an IBM clone, which didn't even have sound, mouse or joystick ports as standard, for playing games.

[Q --start Zovni wrote--]Upgrading your system to play Wing Commander back in the day meant forking double that just to get it to play. [/Q --end Zovni wrote--]

That's because Wing Commander was a 3D game, possibly the first game to make PC gaming interesting as well as making hardware upgrades mandatory.

Terok Nor (44654) on 2/21/2011 3:18 PM · Permalink · Report

Dangerous artifacts, those rose-coloured glasses.

Replace "3D" with "2D" and at least 7 of those statements are just plain incorrect.

Lain Crowley (6629) on 2/21/2011 4:16 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--] Seriously, what's the name of that balls-flatteningly fantastic game you played circa 1989 which had such depth and controlled so smoothly and had such complex gameplay and such a great story? I'm going out on a limb here and say that game never even existed as a fantasy.[/q]

Elite.

[q]Here, let's try this: Name a pre-3D-era RPG as deep as, say, The Witcher. A pre-3D-era shooter with better gameplay than, say, Singularity. A pre-3D-era platformer that controls better than, say, Sands of Time. Any pre-3D-era game with better writing than, say, Mass Effect. A horror game more immersive than Amnesia: The Dark Descent (I'm sure you can think of your own examples in strategy games, I wouldn't touch those with an augmented broomstick D: ). [/q]

Baldur's Gate II, Doom, Gabriel Knight Sins of the Father, and I don't think anyone made horror games befor AitD (There's Sweet Home, which I haven't played but heard good things about, but I doubt it's better than Amnesia).

[q]Hell, try to find one pre-3D-era game /in any genre/ that comes as close to the Holy Grail of perfect execution as Arkham Asylum does --back then it was simply impossible to even imagine a game like that. [/q]

Super Metroid

Daniel Saner (3515) on 2/21/2011 7:51 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--]I understand that the whole "jaded old timer" act makes your balls feel big and whatnot, but there is not one rational point to hold that statement up.[/Q --end Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--]

There are quite some rational statements to back it up. For one, yes there have been quite some games that showed that a focus on 3D can make for a worse game, although I wouldn't say that there have been enough to really call this a problem of the industry. But you can see it in games that went from 2D to 3D with one of their own successors. I used to know a lot of examples that went that way, now the only one I can still remember is The Settlers or maybe Rollercoaster Tycoon, which went from 2D to 3D and in the process lost most of their strategic depth, trading in 50% of the actual playtime with forcing you to fight the freaking camera so you can see what you should be allowed to focus on.

But for the rest, I think it's less of the games going downhill and having been better in the old days, than knowing about what they could be doing, exemplified by some rare, daring projects, compared to what they actually are doing. Video games are essentially the most powerful media for art, entertainment, and storytelling ever. Today you have multi-million dollar projects and development teams in the hundreds, yet 90% of the resources are instantly drained by the need to have the latest and greatest, dead-expensive 3D engine and effects, which at a certain point just stop improving the atmosphere of the game and only serve the short-term Wow effect. Which in the end is what leads to shitty games that people pirate rather than buy, or if they do buy them sell them back to the store after 2 weeks, which is thankfully sending the industry down the drain. The amount of money spent on 3D graphics is ridiculous.

Without thinking of the games of the past, just think of what great games we could be playing right now if more developers spent just 10% less on technological superficialities and spent it on writing or game design worth a shit. You can name a lot of examples of great game of the past decade or so, but what are they, maybe 1% of all titles? And what in absolute sales numbers? There are certainly exceptions, but from what I remember, many of the really great games - May Payne, Deus Ex, Fahrenheit, System Shock 2, Grim Fandango, The Witcher, Planescape: Torment - they usually sell very poorly during the time that it really counts, and only gain recognition and the big numbers of fans later on. The focus on visual effects is certainly one of the factors that makes it so hard for games that focus more on content than looks, and determines the focus that investors will stress in future projects.

Chris Wright (85) on 2/21/2011 9:20 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--] [Q2 --start Indra was here wrote--] The introduction of 3D graphics: less story, less gameplay, less depth, more clunky. [/Q2 --end Indra was here wrote--] I understand that the whole "jaded old timer" act makes your balls feel big and whatnot, but there is not one rational point to hold that statement up. Gaming has gotten better and better as technology moved forward, and that's just straight out fact. [/Q --end Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--]

Whenever someone is most assuredly claiming something to be fact, you know it isn't.

Truth is, 2D graphics had more of a hand-painted, interesting look before Quake and its successors came around. Now art assets are less painted and more constructed.

Don't get me wrong though; I believe in 3D in the long run. But playing HoMM3 is far better than HoMM5, for that very reason (not to mention others).

Daniel Saner (3515) on 2/23/2011 3:38 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Chris Wright wrote--]Truth is, 2D graphics had more of a hand-painted, interesting look before Quake and its successors came around. Now art assets are less painted and more constructed.[/Q --end Chris Wright wrote--]

That's one thing I forgot, I very much agree. All other things equal, 3D games tend to look more alike, less discernible from each other than 2D games. 3D usually tries to approach realism as closely as possible. On one hand that means that many games strive for the same kind of look, and on the other hand that it is much easier to fall into the uncanny valley.

It was very noticeable in the early days of 3D accelerators, now more games seem to be able to somehow achieve a distinct style. But I still think that there's very much to be said for hand-painted graphics. Especially for games such as Adventures or RPGs I often prefer a hand-made 2D look to a 3D world. Games like The Whispered World being prime examples.

Personally, I also much prefer classic 2D animation to 3D CGI in animated movies. Give me Miyazaki over Pixar any day.

Игги Друге (46646) on 2/24/2011 12:25 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--] A pre-3D-era shooter with better gameplay than, say, Singularity.[/Q --end Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--]

R-Type, Gradius, Project X.

[Q --start Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--] A pre-3D-era platformer that controls better than, say, Sands of Time. [/Q --end Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--]

Super Mario series, Sonic, Megaman.

[Q --start Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--] (I'm sure you can think of your own examples in strategy games, I wouldn't touch those with an augmented broomstick D: ). [/Q --end Dr. M. "Schadenfreude" Von Katze wrote--]

Civilization 2. Sim City 2000.

But I admit that titles such as Tetris and Minesweeper come in their own only on a platform with HD 3D graphics, touch controls and a microphone.

vedder (74011) on 2/21/2011 8:57 AM · Permalink · Report

Personally I think each era has its charm. The late seventies and early 80s have some pretty cool Arcade games, that have stood the test of time very well. From the late 80s and early 90s there's primarily the Point & Click Adventures I like, in addition to some great RPGs. From the early to late 90s there's a lot of great Shooters. Starting with Rayman 2 I've seen a bunch of fabulous 3D Platforming games. But also in the last 10 years there've been some great RPGs and RPG-hybrids.

And in the last five years we've been seeing superb "indie" games of all varieties (although way too many platform games).

As for poor games? Fire up your Commodore PET, 95% of the games on there undoubtedly suck by todays standards, but the remaining 5% is surprisingly fun and has stood the test of time very well. For me personally I don't think the ratio of fun games isn't much different on, for example, the Wii.

I think that if you think that the game industry died at a certain point in time, you must either not be looking in the right places for your games (there's hardly any ground not covered by Indie developers) and/or you only like a very specific genre of games.

And I really don't understand the dislike for 3D. Sure you don't need it for Graphical Adventures or most strategy games. But I love (spatial) exploration in games and Ultima Underworld just does that a 100 times better than the Eye of the Beholder or Lands of Lore ever could. It was also one of the things that made Tomb Raider a great game for me, as well as Beyond Good & Evil, Psychonauts and Deus Ex. That doesn't mean that it isn't possible in 2D games (Super Mario Bros. 3 or more recently Cave Story are full of it) but it just opens up more and different experience within the same theme for me.

My favourite games are a mixed bag ranging from Super Mario Bros and R-Type from the 80s to Minecraft, Mass Effect 2 and Left 4 Dead recently.

Indra was here (20745) on 2/21/2011 10:00 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start vedder wrote--]But I love (spatial) exploration in games and Ultima Underworld just does that a 100 times better than the Eye of the Beholder or Lands of Lore ever could. [/Q --end vedder wrote--] Speaking of UW, just recently played the game again. Found the moving mechanics really daft...like trying to move a fast moving 18 wheeler...I don't remember it being this bad. Not quite sure if its because the emulator or something else.

vedder (74011) on 2/21/2011 10:15 AM · Permalink · Report

It has its quirks. While walking around generally goes fine with the keyboard, walls have the annoying property to slow down the avatar. And the look up and down keys are a bit awkwardly placed (I believe it was RFV in System Shock, but here it's 123).

A mouselook mod would do wonders on this game. Scrolling the mouse wheel could function as selecting the different actions (talk, pick-up, attack, look, use). Then you'd only need the mouse cursor to fiddle around in the inventory and dialogue trees.

Playing it at the moment (well in the Weekends anyway) and having a blast!

Maw (832) on 2/21/2011 10:08 AM · Permalink · Report

For me, it was when I saw the same graphics used in two totally different games.

It might have been Monolith's Get Medieval. I recognised (among other things) the dialog box that pops up over your character's head as being lifted from their previous game: Claw. I don't mean it looked similar. It was the exact same sprite. The fact that they didn't even bother to create a new dialog box made me furious on a level that probably isn't proportionate or healthy.

Indra was here (20745) on 2/21/2011 10:13 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Maw wrote--]I don't mean it looked similar. It was the exact same sprite. [/Q --end Maw wrote--] Heh. That's bad.

Personally, I'm a bit amused on how many games (and non-games) that use the same sound of a creaky door opening. Exactly the same.

vedder (74011) on 2/21/2011 10:19 AM · Permalink · Report

Yeah I've heard the same sound in literally dozens of films as well.

Also the "woosh" sound when a puddle of something flammable catches fire. The same totally unrealistic sample in every film.

So games don't have a monopoly on this!

Maw (832) on 2/21/2011 11:08 AM · Permalink · Report

Really, it makes you realise how much of our entertainment was built like Ikea furniture. Just various pre-made parts assembled into a whole.

A producer isn't going to waste 2 hours mic'ing and recording a snare for a beat. He's going to pull a pre-recorded snare sound out of a library. It's going to sound about the same, so why not do it? Disney had a library of various lineart animations, and these were traced over again and again to make movies. Go on Photoshop Disasters and witness all the countless images published in magazines with watermarks still visible.

I don't know if this aspect of our culture is good or bad, but it is what it is.

Indra was here (20745) on 2/21/2011 11:41 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Maw wrote--]Really, it makes you realise how much of our entertainment was built like Ikea furniture. Just various pre-made parts assembled into a whole.

I don't know if this aspect of our culture is good or bad, but it is what it is. [/Q --end Maw wrote--] Well, more or less the same philosophy on how I view illegal actions. The act itself doesn't make it a crime. Getting caught does.

Daniel Saner (3515) on 2/21/2011 7:57 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Maw wrote--]For me, it was when I saw the same graphics used in two totally different games.[/Q --end Maw wrote--]

Find a copy of Limbo of the Lost! You'll have a blast ;D

I took a lecture on sound production once, and the lecturer mentioned that if you are going to use sound effects from a library to save time/money, don't bother unless you are ready to post-edit the sounds to make them "your own". If people start recognising sounds from somewhere else, it instantly gives your project a very cheap, knock-off feel. Same goes for graphics of course.

leilei (343) on 2/22/2011 8:17 AM · Permalink · Report

When Halo came out.

'nuff said.

Indra was here (20745) on 2/22/2011 10:22 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start leileilol wrote--]When Halo came out. [/Q --end leileilol wrote--]That's one game I still haven't tried.

Never really did understood why the worst form of fanboi spinach seems to come from the FPS genre. Perhaps.

Zovni (10502) on 2/22/2011 2:46 PM · Permalink · Report

I propose we officially change the name of this thread to be The Official "Get off my Lawn!!" Thread. Things were better back in the day! I don't know what day it was, but it was sure better than today with those pestering kids and their obnoxious fps videogamethingies! Ooooh back in the day we had a few sticks and some stones, and We liked it dammit!! No need for 3D graphics here!

Indra was here (20745) on 2/22/2011 3:00 PM · Permalink · Report

You make it sound like it's a bad thing, grandpa. :p

Daniel Saner (3515) on 2/22/2011 4:17 PM · Permalink · Report

That nasty thing called a broadening of the audience. Now we just have to wait until videogames develop their own arthouse section.

GAMEBOY COLOR! (1990) on 2/22/2011 11:55 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

When have video games never been popular? There are probably fewer hardcore games nowadays. (Shoot 'em ups, beat 'em ups, fighting games, 80s\90s pc style rpgs, exct.) They'll always be there in some form, though I do wish they were more common. I also wish there was a decent arcade around here. Just as I take a serious interest in them, I find I'm about 20 years too late to see anything really good. >8(

Indra was here (20745) on 2/23/2011 2:58 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start DANIEL HAWKS ! wrote--]There are probably fewer hardcore games nowadays. [/Q --end DANIEL HAWKS ! wrote--] Hmmm....

ponders

Daniel Saner (3515) on 2/23/2011 3:51 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start DANIEL HAWKS ! wrote--]When have video games never been popular? There are probably fewer hardcore games nowadays. (Shoot 'em ups, beat 'em ups, fighting games, 80s\90s pc style rpgs, exct.)[/Q --end DANIEL HAWKS ! wrote--]

They've never really been popular, as I see it. I would argue that even now they only very slowly approach being part of popular culture, and most of that happens in areas we guys around here usually know/talk less about, such as the whole "casual games" market and games on social networks.

The video game business and audience has always more resembled the world of comics than the world of film or music. It's something for a distinct group of people who got into that, as opposed to something that just permeates all parts of society. As someone once put it (forgot who or where): it sounds weird to say "I don't listen to music" or "I don't watch movies", but it's not so weird to hear someone say "I don't play videogames" or "I don't read comics". Games have the potential to become more of the former though, I'm convinced.

As for the "hardcore" games, we probably have different definitions of hardcore. Sure, the games have changed. But I would argue that the first-person shooters, 3rd-person action adventures (à la God of War or Assassin's Creed) and MMORPGs that make up most of today's full-price games market, are really nothing else but hardcore games that only appeal to that very specific audience. If games want to be called popular and culturally significant, they have to offer something for everyone.

Today we have this unfortunate divide of high-budget titles being almost exclusively targetted at the male teenage action gamer audience (oversimplifying of course), and many of the other parts of the population - women, kids, seniors, etc. - only catered to with very cheap, formulaic, and creatively shallow titles. I remember a very nice interview the German MTV did with Guillaume de Fondaumière of Quantic Dream (Heavy Rain, Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy). He was talking exactly about this, how developers should explore more actual genres rather than just different mechanics and technologies for the same style of games, so that like for movies, there's something for everyone. An espionage thriller for you, a drama for your girlfriend, a love story for your mother.

Despite the big bucks, video games are still very much that exclusively nerdy niche. And it's not hard to see why if you see what titles sell most copies, what is promoted in magazines and catalogues and stores (just look at that front page).

Edit: Found the interview with de Fondaumière mentioned above. It's in English with German subtitles (interspersed with scenes from the E3 trailer.)

GAMEBOY COLOR! (1990) on 2/23/2011 11:15 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Daniel Saner wrote--] They've never really been popular, as I see it. I would argue that even now they only very slowly approach being part of popular culture, and most of that happens in areas we guys around here usually know/talk less about, such as the whole "casual games" market and games on social networks. [/Q --end Daniel Saner wrote--]

I agree somewhat. When videogames were new, it seems, to me at least, like they were popular, if for being nothing other than a fun curiosity. I think the reason video games haven't really been accepted as part of the mainstream culture (Geekiness aside.) is because of how many kids play games. Most kids play video games of some sort. As they get older some grow out of them, some don't. I think this created the perception that video games are for kids, or immature adults. (Like how comic books were viewd.) I think in the last decade or so, that perception has been eroding, but very slowly.

[Q --start Daniel Saner wrote--] As for the "hardcore" games, we probably have different definitions of hardcore. Sure, the games have changed. But I would argue that the first-person shooters, 3rd-person action adventures (à la God of War or Assassin's Creed) and MMORPGs that make up most of today's full-price games market, are really nothing else but hardcore games that only appeal to that very specific audience. If games want to be called popular and culturally significant, they have to offer something for everyone. [/Q --end Daniel Saner wrote--]

Yeah, I always considered hardcore games to be shooters, beat 'em ups, fighting games and other arcade style games. (And D&D style pc rpgs.) I wish there were more games like that now. I'm looking into past SNK games to get my fix.

[Q --start Daniel Saner wrote--] Today we have this unfortunate divide of high-budget titles being almost exclusively targetted at the male teenage action gamer audience (oversimplifying of course), and many of the other parts of the population - women, kids, seniors, etc. - only catered to with very cheap, formulaic, and creatively shallow titles. I remember a very nice interview the German MTV did with Guillaume de Fondaumière of Quantic Dream (Heavy Rain, Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy). He was talking exactly about this, how developers should explore more actual genres rather than just different mechanics and technologies for the same style of games, so that like for movies, there's something for everyone. An espionage thriller for you, a drama for your girlfriend, a love story for your mother. [/Q --end Daniel Saner wrote--]

That's why I haven't been very tuned into this generation of games. It seems like there was more game diversity in the PS2/GC/XBOX era. I've missed a few titles, but nothing I can't get now in bargain bins.

Sciere (934359) on 2/23/2011 11:37 PM · Permalink · Report

I was easily amused as a child and had no standards or points of reference for quality, that's why everything seemed so good back then. It wasn't.

Indra was here (20745) on 2/24/2011 4:42 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Sciere wrote--]I was easily amused as a child and had no standards or points of reference for quality, that's why everything seemed so good back then. It wasn't. [/Q --end Sciere wrote--] Oh, it was good. Since we practically knew nothing to compare it with back then. Now we do...and even history repeats itself in creating crappy games. :p

But seriously. How dumb do you have to be to create a clone that is worse than the original? All you have to do is make it better...yet three fourths of clones out there are really, really bad.

Indra was here (20745) on 2/24/2011 4:49 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start DANIEL HAWKS ! wrote--]Most kids play video games of some sort. As they get older some grow out of them, some don't. I think this created the perception that video games are for kids, or immature adults (like how comic books were viewed). I think in the last decade or so, that perception has been eroding, but very slowly. [/Q --end DANIEL HAWKS ! wrote--] Not really. The modern concept of immaturity is heavily influenced by economic system of the state: how productive a person is. A more productive person is considered more responsible as he or she is able to actively contribute value towards him/herself, the community, and the state.

Any activity that does not provide products of goods or services, is deemed an unproductive: immature. Like children and gamers.

BurningStickMan (17916) on 2/24/2011 6:44 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Indra was here wrote--] Any activity that does not provide products of goods or services, is deemed an unproductive: immature. Like children and gamers. [/Q --end Indra was here wrote--] Damned if that doesn't sum it all up right there.

GAMEBOY COLOR! (1990) on 2/24/2011 1:28 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Indra was here wrote--] [Q2 --start DANIEL HAWKS ! wrote--]Most kids play video games of some sort. As they get older some grow out of them, some don't. I think this created the perception that video games are for kids, or immature adults (like how comic books were viewed). I think in the last decade or so, that perception has been eroding, but very slowly. [/Q2 --end DANIEL HAWKS ! wrote--] Not really. The modern concept of immaturity is heavily influenced by economic system of the state: how productive a person is. A more productive person is considered more responsible as he or she is able to actively contribute value towards him/herself, the community, and the state.

Any activity that does not provide products of goods or services, is deemed an unproductive: immature. Like children and gamers. [/Q --end Indra was here wrote--]

I wonder why porfessional sports get a pass then? Overpaid men with necks the size of my thighs playing with balls of some sort still sounds like a game to me. Perhaps it gets a pass because it's physical?

vedder (74011) on 2/24/2011 1:31 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start DANIEL HAWKS ! wrote--] [Q2 --start Indra was here wrote--] [Q3 --start DANIEL HAWKS ! wrote--]Most kids play video games of some sort. As they get older some grow out of them, some don't. I think this created the perception that video games are for kids, or immature adults (like how comic books were viewed). I think in the last decade or so, that perception has been eroding, but very slowly. [/Q3 --end DANIEL HAWKS ! wrote--] Not really. The modern concept of immaturity is heavily influenced by economic system of the state: how productive a person is. A more productive person is considered more responsible as he or she is able to actively contribute value towards him/herself, the community, and the state.

Any activity that does not provide products of goods or services, is deemed an unproductive: immature. Like children and gamers. [/Q2 --end Indra was here wrote--]

You answered your own question I think. Keyword is "overpaid", if it earns money it's by definition productive.

Lain Crowley (6629) on 2/24/2011 7:17 PM · Permalink · Report

Leisure is not unproductive.

Indra was here (20745) on 2/24/2011 8:24 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Lain Crowley wrote--]Leisure is not unproductive. [/Q --end Lain Crowley wrote--]Refer to previous definition of economic productivity.

Sitting on my fat ass playing RPGs all week is hardly deemed productive. Playing games on the weekends to decrease stress levels so the person can work full throttle on Monday is a different context. Productivity refers to an exact activity that has direct output. Playing games isn't one of them (unless one is a game tester).

leilei (343) on 2/23/2011 3:12 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Zovni wrote--]I propose we officially change the name of this thread to be The Official "Get off my Lawn!!" Thread. [/Q --end Zovni wrote--]

It's not a 'getting too old for games' factor playing here - it's the whole shift of game design since Halo. Halo was hyped like a cure for cancer. Relative to what came before and what was on PC at the time it wasn't much in reality of course, but this only set the bar lower (only for HL2 to set even lower. I dissed HL2 - get your torches ready now)

I really wish games pushed forward instead of backward. Consolification? We had Duke3D on consoles, and IMO that's more sophisticated than Halo. It's 2011 and the majority of modern shooters are essentially rail shooters with some dodge area - there's no excuse!

Let's not begin about RPGs, more tears are at risk to be shed considering Dragon Age 2... which will get glowing reception nevertheless.

Indra was here (20745) on 2/23/2011 6:34 AM · Permalink · Report

I seem to be oddly addicted to casual gaming these days. One worth the mention is Ancient Quest of Saqqarah. Not for the game itself, but for the smooth interface, fast loading sequences, brilliant voice acting, etc.

At least someone is taking casual gaming seriously. Too bad they don't take serious gaming that seriously. :p

Lain Crowley (6629) on 2/23/2011 5:43 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start leileilol wrote--] Let's not begin about RPGs, more tears are at risk to be shed considering Dragon Age 2... which will get glowing reception nevertheless. [/Q --end leileilol wrote--] Just played the demo myself and, yeah, wow. I mean I wasn't a big fan of how DA1 handled things; it tried to take the good parts of WoW and put them in a single player game, but they couldn't get it right. This, however, is not the way to be doing things. Omega Force has been making Musou games for over a decade now. They're really good at it, and there's no reason to try and break into their market.

Alternatively, Bioware made Dragon Effect but they replaced the guns with knives. I guess it's easier to work on three concurrent franchises if they all have the exact same design.

Daniel Saner (3515) on 2/25/2011 10:40 AM · Permalink · Report

Also played the DA2 demo yesterday, and was very confused. I had many people, also people whose opinions on games I respect, recommend the first Dragon Age to me. The demo of Dragon Age 2, if it is at all similar to the first game, was very underwhelming. They tried to make every aspect of it look suspenseful, but it's really the same game world and characters and story that I've heard/played about 500 times by now. So is DA2 wo much worse than the first, is the demo so bad, or is this really the RPG the media was so hyped up about? I compare the demo of the lauded DA2 with games such as Two Worlds or The Witcher or Gothic, which were critically panned, and it can't even compare.

vedder (74011) on 2/25/2011 11:05 AM · Permalink · Report

I haven't played DA2, so I can't say how it is in comparison with the first. But the first was pretty good. It didn't start out so well gameplay-wise though. It's a tactical RPG, and you start out with a single character with one or two abilities. There's no tactics involved. Once you have a full party and some choice in attacks in spells it really kicks off.

As for the setting. I've also heard people say that it's "oh so different", but personally I don't see it either. The evil orcs invade the human kingdom, how cliché can it get? The characters and dialogues are well thought out, but the story is totally run-of-the mill. When will we finally get A Song of Ice and Fire type political intrigue and plot twists in our RPGs?

Indra was here (20745) on 2/25/2011 12:06 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Daniel Saner wrote--]Also played the DA2 demo yesterday, and was very confused. [/Q --end Daniel Saner wrote--] The more the demo looks artsy the worse the game or at least in my opinion. Experienced too many games where gameplay just dropped off the ledge. Coincidently, it almost always drops when at the end of the demo. :p

Daniel Saner (3515) on 2/28/2011 4:39 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Indra was here wrote--]The more the demo looks artsy the worse the game or at least in my opinion.[/Q --end Indra was here wrote--]

DA2 wouldn't be in much danger then. They made the demo a very streamlined excerpt/teaser of the story, more similar to the flow of a movie trailer than a conventional game demo, but the actual game parts were very simple. I didn't even care much about the gameplay though, since the story, characters and dialogues felt so shallow and uninspired. There would have been more game mechanics to try out in the demo, I'm sure, but I just played it once to see whether it was going to get more interesting, and when it didn't, lost interest and uninstalled.

Indra was here (20745) on 2/28/2011 7:15 PM · Permalink · Report

Though seeing how Bioware has the bad habit of creating really bad industrialized first games (despite what blind fanbois say), their polished sequels usually are worth the effort.

I forgot if anyone mentioned this before, but I do hope that DA2 gameplay wise different from DA1. That game made me hate magic.

Slug Camargo (583) on 2/25/2011 9:55 PM · Permalink · Report

As part of my newfound love for RPGs I decided to give the DA2 demo a try as well. I won't even mention the spiritual effort it meant to make that call; you know me and dragons, well <----- . ------>

BUT, what the hell, I told myself, let's give it a chance. Everyone said the first one was one of the best RPGs of all times, and also I hate vampires and I did love Legacy of Kain and Bloodlines anyway, so there's that too.

My one-line review of the demo would go: This is very, very, very, VERY bad!!! D: Heart-crushingly bad. I really wanted to like it --hell, in fact I thought the dragon that appears on the intro actually looked pretty coo! But the game just broke me.

Enlighten me, RPG experts: What do you call this kind of gameplay? I'm talking specifically about the combat. Do you have to fumble around with these horribly unintuitive controls that won't let you see what you're supposed to be fighting while constantly clicking on random blank points of the screen, or am I just so stupid there is actually a way to manage this decently and I just didn't get it?

In a nutshell, it felt like I was supposed to be looking around and moving with an analog stick, but I had to click on enemies with the mouse; and enemies were always, always swarming madly in the part of the screen that was out of my sight --as in, in a truly 3D world they would be running around on my desk. It was the most awkward, absurd gameplay travesty I've seen since Metal Gear Solid 2's five-keys-needed-to-swing-a-sword. How could anyone put themselves through more than 10 minutes of this I will never know.

Also, the wizard girl or whatever with the boobs the size of a grown-up human head (each)? Seriously, guys, what the fuck?

Patrick Bregger (306043) on 2/23/2011 5:01 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

In 1990 there were a lot of people who whine about games being stupid nowadays and how they were so much better and more innovative in 1985.

In 1995 there were a lot of people who whine about games being stupid nowadays and how they were so much better and more innovative in 1990.

In 2000 there were a lot of people who whine about games being stupid nowadays and how they were so much better and more innovative in 1995.

Today a lot of people who whine about games being stupid nowadays and how they were so much better and more innovative in 2000.

And in 2015 there will be a lot of people who whine about games being stupid nowadays and how much better and innovative they were in 2010.

Maybe it is just me but I prefer playing games over debating about how the time of my youth was the objective best time for gaming ever. Just like the "PC gaming is dead" debate which goes on since 1990 or so.

And yes, this comes from me whose Top 6 "Best game ever" list is solely composed of games from 1999 or 2000 and thinks that Baldur's Gate II is prettier than every recent RPG.

Pseudo_Intellectual (67449) on 2/23/2011 5:18 PM · Permalink · Report

And in 2015...

These people are all half right and half wrong; time X-5 in the past was almost universally more innovative, but less polished, and hence the games "weren't as good".

I don't mean to gripe about the direction the industry has gone; my main drive in getting involved investigating video game history was primarily a matter of determining why the games I loved from my youth -- the Infocom, Sierra, Lucasfilm, Legend style adventure games -- were no longer represented in any way on store shelves. (It would still be some time before the amateur offerings began achieving the heights of their commercial predecessors.)

Lain Crowley (6629) on 2/23/2011 5:38 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]These people are all half right and half wrong; time X-5 in the past was almost universally more innovative, but less polished, and hence the games "weren't as good". [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] Neither of those statements are even remotely defensible. Lucasarts in the 90s polished their games until you could see your reflection in them. The arcade eras, both of them, lived and died on polish. Was Street Fighter II not a polished game? By the same token, how is Dance Central not an innovative game, or Wii Sports, or Uncharted 2?

Daniel Saner (3515) on 2/25/2011 10:44 AM · Permalink · Report

LucasArts polished their games after they knew what game they wanted to make. They had actual writers that penned an interesting story, which the artists and programmers then turned into a game. The polish was just added. In comparison, many of today's AAA titles are very obviously produced the other way around, developers asking themselves what kind of game they could wrap around this new engine or technology. While games, like Mirror's Edge to take an arbitrary example, who are characteristed by ideas/atmosphere/style/story etc., are few and far between, and don't really sell.

Sciere (934359) on 2/25/2011 11:33 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

LucasArts did the right thing by abandoning a genre in decline. It's just unfortunate they chose the financial security of the Star Wars license over bringing their storytelling to a new genre, more like Beyond Good & Evil for instance. Lucidity and the Monkey Island remakes show they're tempted to throw a bone, but I doubt those projects were more successful than anything they did with SW and they lost most of their original creative team anyway.

CalaisianMindthief (8171) on 2/25/2011 7:07 PM · Permalink · Report

I think we can point out a "decline" of the adventure genre even starting with the emergence of Myst as a favourite purchase among gamers. After that Americans started focusing their attention on Action Adventures and Action games mainly. In my opinion the next thing that happened was the shift of the main adventure game center from North America to Europe.

The post-2000 has known a great deal adventure games, but most of them never were popular across the ocean, that's why the press (which was always decisively influenced by American critics) thinks that the adventure genre "died off". I haven't done real calculations, but I estimate that more than 90% of the studios that made good adventures in 2000-2010 are European. Here's some that come to mind: Funcom (Sweden - The Longest Journey games), Revolution Software (UK - Broken Sword games, In Cold Blood), Frogwares (Ukraine, Ireland, France - the Sherlock Holmes series), Pendulo Studios (Spain - Runaway games), Microids (France - Syberia games, Still Life games, Return to Mysterious Island games), Crimson Cow (Germany - A Vampyre Story, Murder in the Abbey), Daedalic (Germany - Edna & Harvey, The Whispered World, A New Beginning), Frictional Games (Sweden - Penumbra games, Amnesia), Darkling Room (UK - The Lost Crown, Dark Fall: Lost Souls) etc.

In other words adventures, at least in Europe, began targeting certain kinds of people, aka people that dig this stuff - buy this stuff. The only thing that I might admit to have died together with LucasArts' non-SW games were funny adventures, although that is only temporary and still questionable. Even if LA shifted to Europe's kind of adventures, they would've failed. I don't think they even imagined how a "serious" adventure is done :P

Игги Друге (46646) on 2/26/2011 4:27 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start TotalAnarchy wrote--]I think we can point out a "decline" of the adventure genre even starting with the emergence of Myst as a favourite purchase among gamers. [/Q --end TotalAnarchy wrote--]

Perhaps it's because I come from an Amiga perspective (Myst didn't come out on Amiga until 1997 or so), but my impression was that Myst wasn't really a favourite purchase amongst "gamers".

Myst was one of the first games to make some sensible use of the CD-ROM medium, so it sold well to those rich enough to have a CD drive. It was also very unlike other games, and released early on for the Mac, so it drew in a lot of non-gamers. There were articles about Myst in newspapers and magazines grown-ups read, lots of them. I think that kind of broad appeal outside the "gamer" niche, along with the use of a new technology, was what made Myst sell so well.

Oh, and Funcom is Norwegian.

Daniel Saner (3515) on 2/28/2011 5:06 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

Very true, although I think in Europe you could also definitely feel a drop in number and quality of Adventure games produced, at the latest after Grim Fandango in 1998. This seems to have passed though, if you visit one of the many Adventure-only review sites; my favourite is the Adventure-Archiv, due to its amazing completeness. Just look at the "Just released" and "Coming" column to the right, or alternatively the page of upcoming releases. The site actually also has a very interesting statistics page which shows the number of Adventure games released per year. I think the ability to make a title that holds up great against its competition with a comparatively very low budget helps keep this a very viable market, and one that small indie teams can more easily enter than the effects-, engine-, and budget-dominated worlds of other, especially more console-oriented genres.

Also I think the quality of these Adventure games does hold up against the classics of the LucasArts and Sierra era. The Whispered World, Book of Unwritten Tales, A New Beginning, Runaway 3, Lost Horizon, Secret Files 2, Edna & Harvey: The Breakout, Machinarium, Black Mirror 3, Gray Matter... these are all titles from the past 3 years that have gained great ratings (at least in Europe), and most if not all of them are internationally published sooner or later, so there's no real shortage. I once said, always seeing the positive, that at least now you can afford to buy and play through all good new Adventures that are released, but I have since found that this is not true at all. I doubt that the difference in number of high-quality Adventures per year is today that much different from the 90s. Games have reached new audiences with different tastes, that maybe in some regions dwarf the Adventure games'. But I don't think that it is a shift in taste, or even a declining interest in Adventure games, rather than just a shift in demographics. Not less money to be made in Adventures, just more money to be made elsewhere, with new audiences.

Personally, I find that since I started buying more recent games again about three years ago, probably 80-90% of my money goes towards very traditional Adventure and Role-Playing games, mostly from European developers. Other games (GTA IV, Mass Effect, etc.) I'm very reluctant to pay much money for. I usually only get them when I can import them cheaply, or get them off of Steam for 5 bucks.

Funny adventures: I heard Telltale Games does a pretty good job at them. Also check out Edna & Harvey: The Breakout, whose English version has recently been released. I want to restate that in my opinion, Daedalic Entertainment has inherited the throne that once belonged to LucasArts.

Indra was here (20745) on 2/28/2011 7:22 PM · Permalink · Report

Some branch of adventure games (if it is one) seem to be evolving into these puzzle-solving/tile-matching games. I've downloaded at least 3-4 games, with the exactly same gameplay features.

I don't think I know what qualifies as modern adventure games, nor what would be considered a good adventure game. My interest seems to have died with LucasArts. The few adventure games once mentioned and glorified here, I've found to be absolutely horrendous. Not exactly sure if they qualify as adventure games though.

Daniel Saner (3515) on 3/1/2011 10:43 PM · Permalink · Report

At least 90% of the "casual games" market consists of titles with the exact same gameplay, just exchanged graphics and themes. Match-3 (Bejeweled! clones), Time Management (those farming and customer-serving clickfests), and Hidden Objects. The latter are often classified as Adventures for lack of a better description. They are some extended games and mash-ups that actually contain what you could call Adventure elements, but in most cases they lack the focus on and depth of story and characters, and the logical, non-time-critical puzzles that I would call cornerstones of the genre.

Some points I think serve well in outlining what an Adventure game is (with not all of them having to apply to every game and every situation, of course):

Focus on exploration
Focus on conversations
No time limits
Challenges based on logic and deduction, not on manual skills
Based around a clear story
Progression based on story and problems solved
Focus on player decisions related to story
Deep plots and characters

Some examples: the usual Hidden Object games have no "exploration" or conversations in that sense, they are usually based on simple time-limited visual challenges, and don't have long or intricate enough stories to base the game on. Traditional RPGs are not centrally based on logic and deduction, but planning and strategy; progression depends on character development. Tomb Raider or Mass Effect are way too skill-based to qualify. Heavy Rain would probably be on the fringe, since time-limits and skill-based challenges in the form of "reaction tests" are at every corner, but it is clearly focused on plot, conversations, and story-related choices.

The term "interactive movie" in the basic meaning of the words is probably a good approximation. So what are modern adventure games? I don't know, the question sounds weird, somehow like asking how modern films compare to classic 50s Hollywood. Apart from changing on the surface due to the technology, developers just further experiment with the medium's ability to tell a gripping story, in this case interactive stories. Finding ways of touching player's emotions, or exploiting the exclusive feature of interactivity to make playthroughs more individual which often clashes with the aim of having a relevant, suspenseful story. More than anything though, I think Adventure games are like films and books in that they don't rely on developments that lets you divide them into more and less modern titles, instead of just being based exclusively on telling a good story in a gripping way.

Indra was here (20745) on 3/2/2011 12:33 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Daniel Saner wrote--]Some points I think serve well in outlining what an Adventure game is (with not all of them having to apply to every game and every situation, of course):

Focus on exploration
Focus on conversations
No time limits
Challenges based on logic and deduction, not on manual skills
Based around a clear story
Progression based on story and problems solved
Focus on player decisions related to story
Deep plots and characters

[/Q --end Daniel Saner wrote--] Bwahahahaha. You just outlined what many an RPG fanboi calls a role-playing game. Or more specifically, the part where the adventure genre branches into hybrid RPGs and Action games.:p

Dingbats.

[edit] Though I still would argue some of the points:

Focus on exploration --> Exploration is a troubling concept. Exploration in adventure games is not much different than Mario side-scrolling to the next screen. Personally, I'd call it adventuring but I have no idea what that means either in this context. :p
Focus on conversations --> Would depend on the adventure game. Many early adventure games don't do much talking. Later adventure games seem to have more dialogs...and it stuck, but so did JRPGs with "..."
No time limits --> *searching memory* *still searching*
Challenges based on logic and deduction, not on manual skills. --> Personally I'd just call it item-combination puzzle-solving. No adventure game has ever trumped the challenges of logic and deduction of a few RPG hardcore character development.
Based around a clear story --> Mario saving the princess?
Progression based on story and problems solved --> No wonder the Ultima series felt more like an adventure game than an RPG. :p
Focus on player decisions related to story --> I told them Bioware doesn't know what an RPG is, but does anyone listen to me? Noooo.... :p
Deep plots and characters --> More like I wish adventure games had deep plots and characters. :)

Daniel Saner (3515) on 3/2/2011 3:42 AM · Permalink · Report

Well yes, if you think of traditional role-playing games, they are at least 50% made up out of such Adventure game qualities, with most CRPGs having simplified it down to the dice-rolling and rulebook level because that's easier to implement. But you could argue that an implementation true to the classic pen-and-paper role-playing games would also have to include all of what makes a good Adventure game.

Back to some of the specific points:

Exploration: I personally wouldn't call this element of action, platform, or similar games "exploring". It's more of a linear traversal of a scenario, in order to be presented with the next obstacles. In an Adventure, as with most RPGs, it is really an "exploration" in terms of having the player focus on observation and discovery, possibly including getting lost and backtracking to places already visited. In games like Grand Theft Auto, the exploration you do is not related to the main mission-based gameplay. I would call these traditional Adventure elements of a game.
Conversation: I'm sure there are Adventure games with no dialogues at all. Was there any talking at all in the original Colossal Cave Adventure? I tried to keep in mind text adventures. Adventures don't need to have both exploration and conversation elements, but they need at least one. On one extreme you would have for example Visual Novels with usually no exploration at all, but all dialogues. On the other end pure exploration games. If it has neither, only the logic puzzles, then it's just a puzzle game.
Item-combination puzzles: this is certainly true for the traditional breed of Adventures. However, it goes beyond that if you look at games like Heavy Rain, which I deeply hope is a sign of what will become the "modern Adventure" as you put it. There's conversation-based puzzling and decision-making, which goes beyond the classic method of clicking through every topic until you've seen them all, unlocking the next part of the story. And with direct control over characters, there's also more direct influencing of the story by choosing what the character does next. This, I find, gives the game back some of the perceived freedom that many have felt was lost with the move from text parsers to point and click interfaces. Maybe I should forget about the "logic puzzles" formulation and just keep it at "deduction" and "story-related decisions" left up to the player. Mass Effect: the decision of what weapon I kill the next alien with, not story-related. The decision of which chick to bang, an Adventure element.
Clear story: in a better formulation, the game being based around a progressing story. Progress in the game being equal to progress in the story, and the end of the story being the end of the game. I.e. the story is not a backdrop or motivation for the other game elements, but the main focus of the game.
Deep plots and characters: yeah well, sorry for being optimistic =) but I do think that quite a few have achieved it. Not a requirement for an Adventure game to be an Adventure game, but a plot pretty much is, so at least the developers have to put some effort into it. Not that all of them succeed, of course. Perhaps "deep" in comparison to the plots and characters we see in other genres. I'm the first one to say that I am disappointed in how little games have achieved in terms of storytelling and emotional impact, given the possibilities. I like the direction of Quantic Dream's games. I wouldn't call their stories good, since they tend to fall apart in the end. But they certainly are leaps and bounds above their competitors in creating games that make you feel and care. We need more games that feel like watching Casablanca, rather than The Expendables. =P

I didn't understand your comments on Ultima and BioWare though, I'm sorry =) Doesn't Ultima do right what the RPG fanbois complain about in other games, by not forgetting the adventure part of traditional role-playing games? Similarly for BioWare, I don't know what titles or BioWare-era you were referring to, but in the only recent BioWare game I played, Mass Effect, I thought they did an okay job at not forgetting the 'RP' part of 'RPG', like most other developers.

Pseudo_Intellectual (67449) on 3/2/2011 4:06 AM · Permalink · Report

I'm sure there are Adventure games with no dialogues at all. Was there any talking at all in the original Colossal Cave Adventure? I tried to keep in mind text adventures. Adventures don't need to have both exploration and conversation elements, but they need at least one.

Text adventures are traditionally weak on conversation (with no established convention: TALK TO MAN or TELL WATSON ABOUT HOUND can't be expected to yield much. There are some exceptions -- FORD, WHAT ABOUT MY HOME? -- and of course there are Emily Short's advances with eg. Galatea and Alabaster. And of course there is also Eliza.) but where talking is the meat of the matter I think what we're overlooking is that conversation becomes the territory to explore -- not just the rote NAME, JOB interrogation of the Ultima era, but substantial and significant parts of the games as in eg. Planescape or [insert Bioware RPG here].

Even in simplified forms where it's matter of following all threads through the entire tree, conversation in games is still a form of exploration.

Indra was here (20745) on 3/2/2011 8:07 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Daniel Saner wrote--][1] Well yes, if you think of traditional role-playing games, they are at least 50% made up out of such Adventure game qualities, with most CRPGs having simplified it down to the dice-rolling and rulebook level because that's easier to implement. But you could argue that an implementation true to the classic pen-and-paper role-playing games would also have to include all of what makes a good Adventure game.

[2] Exploration: I personally wouldn't call this element of action, platform, or similar games "exploring". It's more of a linear traversal of a scenario, in order to be presented with the next obstacles. In an Adventure, as with most RPGs, it is really an "exploration" in terms of having the player focus on observation and discovery, possibly including getting lost and backtracking to places already visited. In games like Grand Theft Auto, the exploration you do is not related to the main mission-based gameplay. I would call these traditional Adventure elements of a game.

[3] Conversation: I'm sure there are Adventure games with no dialogues at all. Was there any talking at all in the original Colossal Cave Adventure? I tried to keep in mind text adventures. Adventures don't need to have both exploration and conversation elements, but they need at least one. On one extreme you would have for example Visual Novels with usually no exploration at all, but all dialogues. On the other end pure exploration games. If it has neither, only the logic puzzles, then it's just a puzzle game.

[4] Clear story: in a better formulation, the game being based around a progressing story. Progress in the game being equal to progress in the story, and the end of the story being the end of the game. I.e. the story is not a backdrop or motivation for the other game elements, but the main focus of the game.

[5] I didn't understand your comments on Ultima and BioWare though, I'm sorry =) Doesn't Ultima do right what the RPG fanbois complain about in other games, by not forgetting the adventure part of traditional role-playing games? Similarly for BioWare, I don't know what titles or BioWare-era you were referring to, but in the only recent BioWare game I played, Mass Effect, I thought they did an okay job at not forgetting the 'RP' part of 'RPG', like most other developers. [/Q --end Daniel Saner wrote--] [1] You just confirmed various suspicious on how gamers perceive the gaming genre system. As I suspected, it's almost beyond repair. Almost. It's no wonder gamer's have trouble identifying any game. Too much overlapping. Example:
Fanboi x says that a poodle is a dog.
Fanboi y says that a bulldog is a dog.
Fanboi x doesn't agree that a bulldog is a dog.
Fanboi y doesn't agree that a poodle is a dog.
Fanboi z doesn't agree that a bulldog nor a poodle is a dog. Not only hasn't he seen either, he thinks a goat is a dog just because they both have four legs (read=action adventure). :p

Ah, legislative drafting. Good ol'days.

[2] Well, at least I now understand what exploration refers to. Gameplay-wise it's the not getting lost which seems to be a unique game-only feature. However, I now do understand the need to emphasize exploration, but later on that. See below.

[3] Now I understand why exploration continuously needs to be emphasized. I've always suspected that an adventure game and role-playing games aren't on the same par as other other sub-genre, such as action or strategy. Simply because they have too many elements, most of which have branched out and many no longer have the original characteristics of their ancestors. It's like saying that birds are reptiles. We know that birds evolved from reptiles, with some minor similarities but it's somehow too different to be comfortably be placed in one category.

We have continuously failed to identify hybrids and categorize adventure games by their separate elements/attributes/characteristics (we need to choose a formal name here), explicitly different in their game mechanics. As in my previously analogy: don't talk about dogs, talk about what type of dog we're talking about. Thus far, I've made the same mistake of talking about one type of dog. One type of adventure game that I grew up with which clouded my judgment to either adventure hybrids. Bias is an annoying human attribute: Puzzle solving + Inventory System = Adventure.

Now let's see if we can figure out the history of adventure gaming:

Classic/Interactive adventure games: Plot + Puzzle solving (inventory based) + Inventory System
Sierra graphical adventure games: Plot + 2D graphics + Puzzle solving (inventory based) + Inventory System + Sudden Death
LucasArts adventure games: Plot + Puzzle solving (inventory-based) + Inventory System + Dialogs
Myst adventure games: Dunno. Got migraines trying to figure out what to do and gave up. :p
Etc.

Well, I laid out some of the cards on the table. Far from correct to be sure, but I guess you guys can figure out what I'm talking about...and why I'm annoyed with MobyGames...because this is impossible to implement any time soon. :(

[4] Probably plot is a better word. Or something that refers to this: gamers like adventure games because gameplay is always related to the plot. Solving puzzles advances the plot. Evolving story? Dunno. Ask a literature major graduate.

[5] Problem is RP was never really part of RPGs. Which is why every RPG fanboi on the planet is hopelessly confused. The fanbois that complain that RPGs lack story and such are the fanbois that are connected to the adventure elements of the game, but not the traditional role-playing elements. In comparison, a Diablo fanboi is more of a RPG nerd than a Bioware fanboi. Why?

Well, I just figured out one red line we can all related with. Why do we play a mentioned game? For which element? Puzzle solving, building, exploration, character development, etc. It's pretty clear that games have one or more specific attributes that define its attraction to a certain gaming audience. Let's use Bioware games.

What's a Bioware game? Disillusioned gamers call it a role-playing games. Really? Let's use Mass Effect = Action + Adventure + Role-Playing.
Do you play Mass Effect because of its combat sequences? Umm.
Do you play Mass Effect because of its character development and non-existent inventory system. Umm.
Do you play Mass Effect because of the plot, extensive dialogs, and personalized characters? Yes. Now to which genre does this attribute usually refer to? Voila. Mass Effect is an adventure game with role-playing and action elements. Die, Bioware fanbois!

Which is why JRPGs are still JRPGs despite having humongous amount of dialogs and poor character development. Because they have other supporting role-playing elements at play: extensive item management and almost always combat-focused gameplay.

I think I've earned the right to be called the Game Philosopher now. :p
levitates.

Daniel Saner (3515) on 3/2/2011 5:03 PM · Permalink · Report

You are making very good points, I have only something to add to two things...

[Q --start Indra was here wrote--]Far from correct to be sure, but I guess you guys can figure out what I'm talking about...and why I'm annoyed with MobyGames...because this is impossible to implement any time soon. :([/Q]

I think a more fine-grained, tag/keyword-like system could help such issues. Instead of strictly classifying into genres, which are too prone to evolution, change, and bad at expressing mixtures, just assign labels to games based on what kind of elements they implement as main parts of the gameplay. For example in movies, take Thelma & Louise. Is it a crime thriller or a romance film? How much screentime percentage has to be spent on the lovestory so that it is no longer predominantly a crime film, but a romance film?

[Q --start Indra was here wrote--]Problem is RP was never really part of RPGs. Which is why every RPG fanboi on the planet is hopelessly confused. The fanbois that complain that RPGs lack story and such are the fanbois that are connected to the adventure elements of the game, but not the traditional role-playing elements.[/Q]

We have different ideas of what constitutes as traditionally RPG then. I'm no RPG player so I'm far from an expert there. But what I was thinking of were games lake AD&D or the German DSA, where plots and scenario, or "Adventure elements", serve as the backdrop and main motivation for the games played. If I'm not mistaken there are other games like Warhammer or Magic that do away with most of that and almost exclusively focus on rules, statistics, and calculations. So what is traditional RPG?

Just going by the word role-playing game, I consider as traditional RPGs all games in which you play another character, and you make choices by putting yourself in your character's shoes and try to think and decide "in-world" or in-character, rather than by studying only game rules. Diablo couldn't be a role-playing game because there's no role to play. You don't make any decisions for your character, above mechanical elements such as statistics or inventory management. I call a computer-game a CRPG if it allows me to choose how to play my character, and simulates a reactive world and society that behaves differently depending on these choices. Mass Effect or Fable are very good examples for what I consider an RPG.

With all the trouble in defining an Adventure game, maybe the idea of what is an RPG needs to be split up as well. As I see it, detailed character statistics and inventory management are often important tools to let you make choices depending on who you want your character to be, but I don't think of them as sufficient conditions to make an RPG. A game like Rogue, to me, feels like something completely different, not a full-fledged RPG experience. Just as a collection of Puzzles, like say the old Dr. Brain games by Sierra, even though they have Adventure elements, feel more like just a collection of puzzles than a "real" Adventure to me.

So just like you I think the central question is what we play a game for. The trouble is in finding the right words to describe those elements... for example I think we both define RPGs through their character development elements, just that in my point-of-view that is more plot-based, and in yours more mechanics-based. So I would probably call Mass Effect more of a 50% Adventure 50% RPG blend. Typical JRPGs probably even more Adventure than RPG, because characters develop only very superficially.

By the way, I think Mass Effect could have been a better game without any action scenes at all...

Pseudo_Intellectual (67449) on 3/2/2011 5:13 PM · Permalink · Report

An elaboration into inventory objects in adventure games: in RPGs, objects might change your stats and alter your chances of successfully carring out various activities, but in adventures, objects are just keys to the locked doors represented by the puzzles. All puzzles are just bottlenecks temporarily interfering with the exploration.

Indra was here (20745) on 3/2/2011 7:25 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Daniel Saner wrote--][1] We have different ideas of what constitutes as traditionally RPG then.

[2] So what is traditional RPG?

[3] Just going by the word role-playing game, I consider as traditional RPGs all games in which you play another character, and you make choices by putting yourself in your character's shoes and try to think and decide "in-world" or in-character, rather than by studying only game rules. Diablo couldn't be a role-playing game because there's no role to play. You don't make any decisions for your character, above mechanical elements such as statistics or inventory management. I call a computer-game a CRPG if it allows me to choose how to play my character, and simulates a reactive world and society that behaves differently depending on these choices. Mass Effect or Fable are very good examples for what I consider an RPG.

[4] With all the trouble in defining an Adventure game, maybe the idea of what is an RPG needs to be split up as well.

[5] By the way, I think Mass Effect could have been a better game without any action scenes at all... [/Q --end Daniel Saner wrote--] [1] Which constitutes much of the problems we're having. Since you and I and every geek on the planet has experienced different games growing and attracted to different elements an adventure game or a role-playing game has, who's to say one's opinion is more correct. Pseudo's frame of mind could categorize a whole lot of nasty action games into role-playing. Understanding his perspective, it works...in a pseudo kinda way. :p

But to make thing's clear on what the hell we were talking about in the first place. Let me refresh our memories.

Situation:
Me likes game A. Me knows game A is an RPG. Me browse RPG genre in a games database. Me sees game B. Me buys and plays game B. Game B is nots like game A. Me wants games like game A. Me screwed.

Which is why I created that exhausting Diablo-variant game group, to test a theory that RPGs just have evolved into having too many elements that need to be identified independently. Hell, trying to figuring the psych profile of psychopaths is easier. If we were to draw a Venn diagram for adventure games and RPGs, someone would get hurt pretty fast, pretty badly.

However, to satisfy the possibility that the situation above can be fulfilled...personally I think it's a gamer's dream come true as far as databases are concerned. The best I come up with was those gazillion game groups I created, to help fellow gamers find independent elements they want to find in a game if the genre system (and has) failed. Too frustrating to continue since due to the trial-and-error process, I constantly fak up and some corrections may only be conducted by admins...which you know how long that'll take. Even more so ever since the %!# html listing got screwed up and still hasn't been fixed. Ignores stupid approver requests to add < /li > to every bullet when there's already a < /ul > sigh

Er. Now where was I? :p

[2] Honestly, beats me. Though I'd probably be one of the few RPG fanbois that'll admit that. Most of the problem lies in RPG history itself. Unlike the adventure genre that started with the PC (I assume). RPG came from board games or any little geek carrying a stick. Problem is, when an RPG board game and an RPG computer game are two different worlds. In an RPG game, it's about adventuring, exploration, and fighting off horny orcs...and most important...role-playing. Dressing up as Jabba the Hutt and pretend he can run fast. In a computer game, what game doesn't role-play? Technically it's no longer role-playing. The primary attributes in board games evolved into something else when it hit computers. Technology was minimal, so you ended up with Rogue, which I often use as the framework that constitutes a traditional RPG.

Was character development ever part of role-playing games? I honestly don't know. I do know it wasn't the primary element in board RPGs. Squatting orcs and an inventory system is the only thing I can of certainty claim is almost universal among RPGs. Character development? Defining character development itself is straining. Hell, even Mario can get a health increase.

[3] That's the thing. All adventure games must have role-playing. Computer role-playing games don't all (hell, a lot don't) have role-playing. Guybrush Threepwood in this context would be more of a role-playing game than a Druid in Diablo. Since we know that for some odd reason Monkey Island isn't a role-playing game, someone got it wrong. In this case, my argument is that every dang nerd in the gaming universe got it wrong. Adventure games do more role-playing than role-playing games. Role-playing games do more adventuring than adventure games. If this isn't an example of confusion, I don't know what is. :p

[4] Not split. But individual elements need to be identified. Here's an example of some people who are leaning in the right direction (note: click on 'more themes' be even more impressed). Ironically, most databases that have extensive topic categories are usually pornographically related. Hmm.

[5] Which is why it's more of an adventure game (kiss the girl) than a role-playing (squat the orc) kinda game.

Daniel Saner (3515) on 3/2/2011 8:16 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Indra was here wrote--]Guybrush Threepwood in this context would be more of a role-playing game than a Druid in Diablo. Since we know that for some odd reason Monkey Island isn't a role-playing game, someone got it wrong. In this case, my argument is that every dang nerd in the gaming universe got it wrong. Adventure games do more role-playing than role-playing games. Role-playing games do more adventuring than adventure games.[/Q]

Definitely on to something there. Monkey Island and Diablo are obviously very different to play. For the sake of argument, I'll stick to the traditional classifications, MI a classic Adventure, and Diablo and Action RPG, which I regard as a specific genre that is however not a subtype, nor even really related to RPGs. What is the difference in role-playing and character development? In Monkey Island, the characters develop according to a pre-written story, in Diablo or Mass Effect you are given the choice on how your character develops, in the former more based on statistics, in the latter on in-plot decisions. It's obviously not a clear distinction. Non-linear Adventure games with multiple endings can give you some choice what the characters develop into. Role-playing games that allow not only the improvement of stats but also plot-related choices, inevitably reach into that same regions. So I agree that Mass Effect is more closely related to the traditional idea of an Adventure than the traditional idea of an Action RPG. Sure, I distributed some skill points and fiddled around with equipment. But when I think of what really allowed me to choose what kind of Commander Shephard to play, what makes each player's game their own, it is the multiple choice dialogues that determined behaviour, quest progression, and social relations.

I think I understand what you mean now. They call Monkey Island an Adventure and Diablo an Action RPG. But they call Mass Effect an Action RPG too, even though it has much more in common with Monkey Island than Diablo. Mass Effect is part Shooter, part Adventure, part whatchacallit-Diablo-style character/inventory stuff. The former two are more or less "understood" and very applicable, but the last is confusing.

[Q --start Indra was here wrote--]Here's an example of some people who are leaning in the right direction (note: click on 'more themes' be even more impressed). Ironically, most databases that have extensive topic categories are usually pornographically related. Hmm.[/Q --end Indra was here wrote--]

It's the unyielding drive to find ways of justifying why you spend so much time with the stuff. "But honey, I'm doing a curator's work, this is culturally significant!" =P

As for the right direction, I hope I'm not breaking an unwritten rule to not link to "competing" projects, but I am also very charmed by this or this.

I am very much in defense of traditional, non-overlapping "drawer" taxonomies. But the tag-based approach is an extremely helpful extension. Especially for the "What's similar to X?" type of queries, or for finding forgotten titles that you remember only a few details of. IMDb's keywords are amazing for this, just remember a couple of objects or themes that played a major role in a film, and you'll have a good chance of finding it.

Pseudo_Intellectual (67449) on 3/2/2011 11:09 PM · Permalink · Report

In a computer game, what game doesn't role-play? Technically it's no longer role-playing. ... Was character development ever part of role-playing games? ... All adventure games must have role-playing. Computer role-playing games don't all (hell, a lot don't) have role-playing.

You keep tying yourself into knots with needlessly literal interpretations of the terms "role-playing" and "character development", and by necessarily saddling CRPGs with the baggage of their computerless predecessors. Doing this traps you in language pitfalls even before you attempt to engage what they actually mean. I don't want to be the one to explain to you that a peanut butter sandwich does not contain any butter.

Zovni (10502) on 3/3/2011 1:44 AM · Permalink · Report

Damn. I get away from the thread for a while and I get this... TL:DR.

Indra was here (20745) on 3/3/2011 2:09 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Zovni wrote--]TL:DR. [/Q --end Zovni wrote--]And yet, I'm certain you followed the link to all those wedding gowns. :p

Indra was here (20745) on 3/3/2011 2:07 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]You keep tying yourself into knots with needlessly literal interpretations of the terms "role-playing" and "character development", and by necessarily saddling CRPGs with the baggage of their computerless predecessors. Doing this traps you in language pitfalls even before you attempt to engage what they actually mean. I don't want to be the one to explain to you that a peanut butter sandwich does not contain any butter. [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] A trap often used by other gamers unfortunately. Most still think that peanut butter does contain butter and the literal interpretation is almost always used as a valid argumentation. If RPGs were in fact called hypothetically, story-driven games, I'd be arguing how it really isn't that story driven.

The naming itself is part of the problem. Its history is part of the problem. Every viable source for misinterpretation is the problem due to improper and irresponsible use of terms by people without bothering to provide a clear definition.

I've asked several RPG gamers who have different ideas on what an RPG is. Every response from a standard character development and deep character answers, to games with too many dialogs (JRPGs), games with hundreds of items, games where you can hoard gold, etc. All identifying a few anatomical elements the animal, but none have any idea of what the whole animal actually looks like.

As I mentioned, I know RPGs from my role-playing experience. As do you, as do every other geek in the neighbourhood. We think we know what an RPG is, until someone comes up with a totally different explanation. If a 12 year-old kid started out with Diablo as his/her first RPG, would have trouble agreeing that Rogue or Heroes Quest is an RPG for example.

Sure, any dingbat can see what an RPG game is. Not every dingbat can put it writing. That's the difference on what I'm trying to find out. How the hell to put this in writing.

Pseudo_Intellectual (67449) on 3/3/2011 4:00 AM · Permalink · Report

Sure, any dingbat can see what an RPG game is. Not every dingbat can put it writing. That's the difference on what I'm trying to find out. How the hell to put this in writing.

There is nothing that they all are; they have actually evolved through time. You can see the relation between stages A and B, and between B and C, but if your only reference points are stages A and C, it doesn't /make sense/. Same problem with adventures: you can see how you get from ADVENT to Zork, and from Zork to King's Quest, and from King's Quest to Maniac Mansion and from Maniac Mansion to Shadowkeep and from Shadowkeep to Myst. But looking for a link between Zork and Myst is an exercise in futility.

j.raido 【雷堂嬢太朗】 (112052) on 3/3/2011 4:17 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

Somebody needs to fix this bug!

Pseudo_Intellectual (67449) on 3/3/2011 7:40 AM · Permalink · Report

Sorry, not Shadowkeep, but rather Shadowgate. (And no, it didn't follow Maniac Mansion -- they're contemporaries.)

Indra was here (20745) on 3/3/2011 3:33 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]Same problem with adventures: you can see how you get from ADVENT to Zork, and from Zork to King's Quest, and from King's Quest to Maniac Mansion and from Maniac Mansion to Shadowkeep and from Shadowkeep to Myst. But looking for a link between Zork and Myst is an exercise in futility. [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] Which, if we use this framework of thought, makes many main genre's obsolete. Because we're still calling a chicken an Archaeopteryx.

Pseudo_Intellectual (67449) on 3/3/2011 5:39 PM · Permalink · Report

Well we've already set down lines between "text adventure" and "graphical adventure". That latter area just needs a bit more winnowing down into sub-genres. These could be distinguished by interface conventions or just a time period or company under which they rose and fell.

Indra was here (20745) on 3/3/2011 7:19 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]Well we've already set down lines between "text adventure" and "graphical adventure". [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] Personally, one day we can finally get rid of the adventure and RPG genre and go with more specific genre's like text adventure, graphical adventure, JRPG (er...), etc. (not entirely sure if that's a good idea, but what the hey). I won't be satisfied until we have something close to surgical precision. It's possible, but the 'how' is basically the essence of all my whining.

Игги Друге (46646) on 2/26/2011 4:44 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Patrick Bregger wrote--]In 1990 there were a lot of people who whine about games being stupid nowadays and how they were so much better and more innovative in 1985.[/Q --end Patrick Bregger wrote--]

Not really. In 1990 there was still a lot of technological optimism, and the few critics were on about how games were more stupid in 1985, finding the 16-bit titles too long, too convoluted, lacking in primitive charm. Case in point: Amiga Power choosing Rainbow Islands as the best game ever, year upon year. Still, they were an anomaly, the average magazine critic looking forward to even thicker manuals in Harpoon 2.0 and the next Lucasfilm game on twelve floppies instead of eight.

[Q --start Patrick Bregger wrote--]In 1995 there were a lot of people who whine about games being stupid nowadays and how they were so much better and more innovative in 1990.[/Q --end Patrick Bregger wrote--]

No, because the PSX was released at that time and CD-ROM was still hip. It was something entirely new, and it was very well-received because mainstream games were stagnating in 1993-1994 with big players from outside the games industry entering the market, filling it with simple platform games based on movie licences. As if 3D graphics wasn't enough of an enticement in itself, the 2D market was in such a bad state that it made 3D look even better than it was.

[Q --start Patrick Bregger wrote--]In 2000 there were a lot of people who whine about games being stupid nowadays and how they were so much better and more innovative in 1995.[/Q --end Patrick Bregger wrote--]

Quite possibly. There is only so much room for innovation when going from 3D with 3 000 polygons to 3D with 14 000 polygons, compared to going from SNES to PSX. There's very little you can do with a PS2 that you can't do with a PS1, unless you count polygons for leisure.

[Q --start Patrick Bregger wrote--]Today a lot of people who whine about games being stupid nowadays and how they were so much better and more innovative in 2000.[/Q --end Patrick Bregger wrote--]

That's because they lack perspective. Games were better and more innovative in 1985. Or 1978. Those who complain also fail to note what Nintendo has done. What makes matters worse is that the full potential of modern hardware is mostly used to make existing concepts look better, and that a games industry that is "bigger than Hollywood" is only big because it is even better than Hollywood at aiming only for the safe bets.

[Q --start Patrick Bregger wrote--]And in 2015 there will be a lot of people who whine about games being stupid nowadays and how much better and innovative they were in 2010.[/Q --end Patrick Bregger wrote--]

Luckily, we won't have major hardware innovations in the next five years, so it might turn out that the industry is forced to innovate in other departments than graphics.

Maw (832) on 2/26/2011 7:06 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--]

[Q2 --start Patrick Bregger wrote--]In 2000 there were a lot of people who whine about games being stupid nowadays and how they were so much better and more innovative in 1995. [/Q2 --end Patrick Bregger wrote--]

[/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--]

That's the interesting thing about technology: diminishing returns. Each technological step is a smaller step than the one before it.

If you'll recall, that was the thinking behind the Wii. "Hey, we're hitting the wall as far as technology goes, so instead of spending millions of dollars trying to squeeze out 3% more polygons, let's focus on game design!"

Not to sound like a Nintendo plant (I don't even own a Wii), but I think that's a taste of what lies ahead: a world where advancements in gaming technology are so incremental and pointless that nobody bothers any more. Although who knows, maybe we have revolutionary technology ahead that will completely change the game (micro-circuits or whatever). Nobody has a crystal ball.

Daniel Saner (3515) on 2/28/2011 5:17 PM · Permalink · Report

We can only hope. Then the funds in game development can again be more directed towards qualities that don't fade into irrelevance as soon as the next 5 games are released.

If I had to place a bet, I would say that the most revolutionary developments in the next couple of years will happen in the areas of simulation and artificial intelligence. Our game worlds look good enough now, but they still feel like game worlds with very simple rules that you learn to predict and exploit very quickly. In most games it doesn't take long until you no longer feel like taking part in what's happening on screen, rather than trying to find out how to bend the game mechanics to your advantage so you can proceed. The next step in making game worlds more believable and immersive is not increasing polygons and special effects, but making it react realistically, and having characters that feel less like NPCs.

It's frustrating to see how many games are still so rigid, linear, and predictable.

Indra was here (20745) on 3/1/2011 7:41 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Maw wrote--]Not to sound like a Nintendo plant (I don't even own a Wii), but I think that's a taste of what lies ahead: a world where advancements in gaming technology are so incremental and pointless that nobody bothers any more. [/Q --end Maw wrote--] Experienced gamers, probably yes. But there's always new blood born everyday who are absolutely clueless. Hell, look at the abundance of modding communities.

Indra was here (20745) on 3/7/2011 5:26 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

One of the most ironic lines I've seen in the movies in the 21st century is in that Michael Douglas film. Stealing is now legal....or something like that. So this should sum-up an annoyed gamer (join the club) from a recently reviewed StarCraft 2:

"Oh, and you have to pay extra for all the "downloadable premium content". Sure. After you registered your game, stored your savegames online, be online all the time and let Activision mirror your harddrive. Thanks.

Okay, at least I can gather my friends, we all install the game and play. Nope. The spawn function is gone, absolutely everybody has to own a copy. Fine, so everybody gets a copy, we meet, order pizza and start are ready to get going. Still no. Why, you ask? Because there is no LAN function. It's just no there! So you need like half a dozen internet connections at one place. Brilliant, just brilliant.

Sad. But I will be able to play against my buddies from Brazil and Australia, right? Right? Wrong! There's an entirely pointless region code. A region code! I don't believe it!"

If there's someone out there who's trying to make pirates feel bad...they're doing a pretty lousy job at it.

Daniel Saner (3515) on 3/7/2011 5:42 PM · Permalink · Report

Wow, I didn't really stay up-to-date on Blizzard and StarCraft in the past 10 years, but that's really bad. Instead of companies starting to learn, it seems like they're all in one big global competition of who can commit the most gruesome business suicide.

Because sure enough, a quick Google search confirms that the pirates have long since come up with hacks and patches to enable LAN play. Once again, the owners of the original copies are the only group of people who ever really suffer from "anti-piracy" measures. I also recently read of a game (Dead Space 2?) that had "console-exclusive DLC". Legal owners of the PC game have no way of acquiring/enabling these additional contents, even if they were ready to pay for them (which I suppose they wouldn't be). The pirates, in the meantime, download an additional 50kB DOX add-on that unlocks all of the additional content at once. The file size being a very clear indication that it's not even DLC, it is already included in the game, just blocked.

Way to discourage people from turning to piracy! Does anyone actually still buy PC games without additionally downloading the real, clean, fully-featured pirate copy?