The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Logical, n'est pa?
A lot of people often say (well, to me anyway..) that they enjoyed gaming in the past much more than now, so why is this?
Well, retro gaming does have a certain nostalgic thing about it (you know, being in the past and all that) but if you discount the small amount of rose tinted spectacle viewing that tends to happen in these situations, you come up with a few home truths.
Gaming should be fun.
Above all else, however serious you get with a game, however lifelike the game is made to be, there is only one thing it must have, the fun factor. This is the key to why games were so good in the past. Without the fancy graphics or the realistic effects and surroundings, programmers had to create games that were going to hold people's attentions for more than a few hours in order to sell their games.
Perhaps they have lost their way somewhat in making today's games 'appealing' by increasing the AI or making the shadows move realistically, all things that give a game the instant 'wow' factor for the first impression. Ok, so this is important when selling a game, for people to be able to look at it and say 'I want that', but what happens when they've played it once? What happens when the next level they get to is the same as the last and the whole thing feels as if it has no soul? Well, it just gets chucked on the pile and the games player waits for the next 'wow' experience to come along, while the software company lines its pockets.
Experimentation.
In the early days of gaming we saw many a strange and weird game go by. Some of them were far too strange to sell, but most were lapped up as being original and exciting. There was a buzz around because you never knew what to expect next. It's not just one company that's guilty of sticking to the mainstream these days, however much some people insinuate this. Every games company sticks to what will make them money, particularly in sequels of popular games that don't really differ from their ancestors. We need that fun filled feel of anticipation back, instead of waiting for Another Adventure III or Fighting Zone 4, we should be getting Trance Fox blaster or Glass Wizard in Cream (you get the idea, something non-mainstream) Time was when you could be assured of playing a wizard turned into a bouncing ball by some magic spell or a drunk that needed to be guided home, you just didn't know what was around the corner.
Doing it for Love
It’s all about money these days. Well, to some extents it always was, but you get the feeling that big corporations running the decisions is far more detrimental to the industry than someone feverishly working away at a game in their bedroom or study. Even firms at the time, like Ocean or Imagine weren’t that big and created enough original games alongside their arcade counterparts to offset the corporate boredom of mainstream.
Yes, the audience has changed these days, that’s for certain. But back when 8-bit computers first came out, everyone and their dad was getting into gaming and the whole geeky idea didn’t really feature until later on. Just because the public is mainstream, it doesn’t mean that the games have to be. BBC works well alongside Channel 4, it would be boring if you didn’t have the choice.
What can we do? Well, we always have a choice, we can always use our voice. Write to the games companies or, even better, set one up yourselves. Don’t be pressured by the big boys of industry. If people could create games in their bedrooms back in the 80’s (Codemasters started in a similar way) then it can still be done now, and there are tools to do it too, some of them are free. Sell your games at local games shops and get noticed, then move in and nudge those boring big players to the side as you bring the rainbow of fun and originality back to the sky of gaming. We need to do something, otherwise we’ll end up being the losers, we need games to be fun again and we need that element of surprise, rather than the stagnant smell of predictability.
A lot of people often say (well, to me anyway..) that they enjoyed gaming in the past much more than now, so why is this?
Well, retro gaming does have a certain nostalgic thing about it (you know, being in the past and all that) but if you discount the small amount of rose tinted spectacle viewing that tends to happen in these situations, you come up with a few home truths.
Gaming should be fun.
Above all else, however serious you get with a game, however lifelike the game is made to be, there is only one thing it must have, the fun factor. This is the key to why games were so good in the past. Without the fancy graphics or the realistic effects and surroundings, programmers had to create games that were going to hold people's attentions for more than a few hours in order to sell their games.
Perhaps they have lost their way somewhat in making today's games 'appealing' by increasing the AI or making the shadows move realistically, all things that give a game the instant 'wow' factor for the first impression. Ok, so this is important when selling a game, for people to be able to look at it and say 'I want that', but what happens when they've played it once? What happens when the next level they get to is the same as the last and the whole thing feels as if it has no soul? Well, it just gets chucked on the pile and the games player waits for the next 'wow' experience to come along, while the software company lines its pockets.
Experimentation.
In the early days of gaming we saw many a strange and weird game go by. Some of them were far too strange to sell, but most were lapped up as being original and exciting. There was a buzz around because you never knew what to expect next. It's not just one company that's guilty of sticking to the mainstream these days, however much some people insinuate this. Every games company sticks to what will make them money, particularly in sequels of popular games that don't really differ from their ancestors. We need that fun filled feel of anticipation back, instead of waiting for Another Adventure III or Fighting Zone 4, we should be getting Trance Fox blaster or Glass Wizard in Cream (you get the idea, something non-mainstream) Time was when you could be assured of playing a wizard turned into a bouncing ball by some magic spell or a drunk that needed to be guided home, you just didn't know what was around the corner.
Doing it for Love
It’s all about money these days. Well, to some extents it always was, but you get the feeling that big corporations running the decisions is far more detrimental to the industry than someone feverishly working away at a game in their bedroom or study. Even firms at the time, like Ocean or Imagine weren’t that big and created enough original games alongside their arcade counterparts to offset the corporate boredom of mainstream.
Yes, the audience has changed these days, that’s for certain. But back when 8-bit computers first came out, everyone and their dad was getting into gaming and the whole geeky idea didn’t really feature until later on. Just because the public is mainstream, it doesn’t mean that the games have to be. BBC works well alongside Channel 4, it would be boring if you didn’t have the choice.
What can we do? Well, we always have a choice, we can always use our voice. Write to the games companies or, even better, set one up yourselves. Don’t be pressured by the big boys of industry. If people could create games in their bedrooms back in the 80’s (Codemasters started in a similar way) then it can still be done now, and there are tools to do it too, some of them are free. Sell your games at local games shops and get noticed, then move in and nudge those boring big players to the side as you bring the rainbow of fun and originality back to the sky of gaming. We need to do something, otherwise we’ll end up being the losers, we need games to be fun again and we need that element of surprise, rather than the stagnant smell of predictability.
Page:
To me personnally I think that retro games were so much more fresh than they are today. What the hell is a 14 year old trying to write a post about retro games you may ask, but give me a chance.
When I was younger I used to play on my brothers many Amigas and PCs. We used to play games for hours on end, such classics as Speedball 2, Alien Breed (well we liked it), original Mortal Kombat games, Cannon Fodder, James Pond and many others. Each time we played we would have FUN, and I feel thats what is missing from todays games.
When I play a game now I play for one reason and for that reason alone....to win. I have got to competitive in the way I play nowadays and I no longer have fun unless I am dealing out lead ridden death. When we used to play we would play for the simple task of having fun. Something I can no longer do.
Every game I used to play seemed so new and exciting, filled to brim with new ideas and just simply a joy to play. Now when I buy a game all I am interested in is graphics, new ideas and other "boring" things. No longer do any games feel original to me.
I get to caught up in things that to be honest don't matter, what a game really needs is graphics good enough to be played and stacks of gameplay. This is something games released nowadays are missing, the vital ingredient...gameplay.
Developers get to caught up in perfecting the games graphics that the gameplay doesn't get a look in. Just screech down to SR (stay on the net and order) The Bouncer to see what I mean. Absolutely blinding cut scenes, but where is the gameplay Squaresoft??? Proves my point to the inch.
But now take a look back at a game such as Sensible Soccer. I had played games with better graphics back then than this game, but nothing could better it because of its great gameplay. My friends recently (last year) got a copy of Sensible Soccer for the Snes. HAd the choice between that and ISS '98 we chose Sensible soccer, just goes to show that gameplay wins over graphics.
So for me retro games were better than their modern days counter parts. Although this doesn't mean I won't be rushing out for a GAMECUBE! ;-)
(;o|
When I was younger I used to play on my brothers many Amigas and PCs. We used to play games for hours on end, such classics as Speedball 2, Alien Breed (well we liked it), original Mortal Kombat games, Cannon Fodder, James Pond and many others. Each time we played we would have FUN, and I feel thats what is missing from todays games.
When I play a game now I play for one reason and for that reason alone....to win. I have got to competitive in the way I play nowadays and I no longer have fun unless I am dealing out lead ridden death. When we used to play we would play for the simple task of having fun. Something I can no longer do.
Every game I used to play seemed so new and exciting, filled to brim with new ideas and just simply a joy to play. Now when I buy a game all I am interested in is graphics, new ideas and other "boring" things. No longer do any games feel original to me.
I get to caught up in things that to be honest don't matter, what a game really needs is graphics good enough to be played and stacks of gameplay. This is something games released nowadays are missing, the vital ingredient...gameplay.
Developers get to caught up in perfecting the games graphics that the gameplay doesn't get a look in. Just screech down to SR (stay on the net and order) The Bouncer to see what I mean. Absolutely blinding cut scenes, but where is the gameplay Squaresoft??? Proves my point to the inch.
But now take a look back at a game such as Sensible Soccer. I had played games with better graphics back then than this game, but nothing could better it because of its great gameplay. My friends recently (last year) got a copy of Sensible Soccer for the Snes. HAd the choice between that and ISS '98 we chose Sensible soccer, just goes to show that gameplay wins over graphics.
So for me retro games were better than their modern days counter parts. Although this doesn't mean I won't be rushing out for a GAMECUBE! ;-)
(;o|
Yes, I believe that some games companies have lost their way, due to being able to churn out the same old game with no soul and little feeling. This used to happen with some of the larger companies back in the 8 and 16-bit days, but less so than now.
More people 'tried' to make games in the past than happens now. Partly due to technology and partly because only the big companies are surviving, it's so hard to get into the industry these days. It's a shame because this promotes a lack of ideas and some constraint over the type of game that appears (although no constraint over lack of quality, however cheap the game)
In the past there were many ideas that hadn't been tried, these are 'used up’ now, but like music, there are plenty of ideas left and there are still games that provide that originality and fun. Yes, Crazy Taxi is one of those and Sega are probably responsible for more 'old' style games than any other company. Perhaps it is because they have been around that long and witnessed how games used to be made, who knows. I certainly wouldn't like to insinuate that!
It’s not all about originality though. Yes, some sequels can be as good as the original, but far too many companies seem to think that they can get away with releasing a sequel with no, or little improvements over the original. Ok, so to an extent this happened in the past, but not so often.
The main problem with retro gaming, as you so rightly pointed out, was that there were some awful games produced by lone programmers and even small companies, but this was balanced by the fact that there was more space in the games market and it wasn’t just the ‘big boys’ hammering out the games and making sure no-one else got a look in. This produced a lot of hidden talent that nowadays would have gone un-noticed. I guess it was a new frontier, full of ways to experiment, where now it’s just about keeping your company afloat and not sinking fast, while sticking to the rules.
I’ll re-iterate my point from earlier though, there are some good games out there now. But how many games from this decade will you be able to come back to in 10 or 20 years time and want to play again, compared to the amount from the 80’s. Oh, and I never said I didn’t enjoy gaming today, thank you, why else would I be here, on a forum about games. I’m just stating the way I see the industry that produces these silicone dreams. You may have a different view, fine, but I, like many others, want to see some more games that defy the norm and rise above the rest.
More people 'tried' to make games in the past than happens now. Partly due to technology and partly because only the big companies are surviving, it's so hard to get into the industry these days. It's a shame because this promotes a lack of ideas and some constraint over the type of game that appears (although no constraint over lack of quality, however cheap the game)
In the past there were many ideas that hadn't been tried, these are 'used up’ now, but like music, there are plenty of ideas left and there are still games that provide that originality and fun. Yes, Crazy Taxi is one of those and Sega are probably responsible for more 'old' style games than any other company. Perhaps it is because they have been around that long and witnessed how games used to be made, who knows. I certainly wouldn't like to insinuate that!
It’s not all about originality though. Yes, some sequels can be as good as the original, but far too many companies seem to think that they can get away with releasing a sequel with no, or little improvements over the original. Ok, so to an extent this happened in the past, but not so often.
The main problem with retro gaming, as you so rightly pointed out, was that there were some awful games produced by lone programmers and even small companies, but this was balanced by the fact that there was more space in the games market and it wasn’t just the ‘big boys’ hammering out the games and making sure no-one else got a look in. This produced a lot of hidden talent that nowadays would have gone un-noticed. I guess it was a new frontier, full of ways to experiment, where now it’s just about keeping your company afloat and not sinking fast, while sticking to the rules.
I’ll re-iterate my point from earlier though, there are some good games out there now. But how many games from this decade will you be able to come back to in 10 or 20 years time and want to play again, compared to the amount from the 80’s. Oh, and I never said I didn’t enjoy gaming today, thank you, why else would I be here, on a forum about games. I’m just stating the way I see the industry that produces these silicone dreams. You may have a different view, fine, but I, like many others, want to see some more games that defy the norm and rise above the rest.
grecian wrote:
I don't think that's what pb was saying though, well not how I read it. You do seem to have caught yourself a nasty does if the "Edge Reader" phenomenon I mentioned earlier.
Games have no playability now? Rubbish. Total rubbish. I always seem to use Crazy Taxi as an example, so I won't make an exception here. Yes, it has good graphics, but it also has oodles of playability (a term so woolly I don't really like to use it anyway). Mario Tennis? Huge big shovels of playability. Jet Set Radio? Operation Flashpoint? Max Payne? That’s right, sufferers of the Edge Reader syndrome are unable to see past good graphics to a good game, which is a tad ironic. It is often them who shout the loudest about people being seduced by great graphics yet missing the awful game.
Amiga was just as bad for style over content as modern consoles, which is really what you are trying to get at. Do you not remember the thousands of movie licences that spawned dull platformers? Probably not as the number one symptom of the Edge Reader syndrome is that your eyes are blinkered to forget about games like these, and the mountains of other “retro” games that were totally rubbish. Bedroom coding created thousands of rubbish games weekly, and it was relatively easy to get these published. Magazines had an impossible task in even listing the names of these, so picking a game was a little like Russian roulette – only the gun has 25 barrels and only one is empty.
I don't think that's what pb was saying though, well not how I read it. You do seem to have caught yourself a nasty does if the "Edge Reader" phenomenon I mentioned earlier.
Games have no playability now? Rubbish. Total rubbish. I always seem to use Crazy Taxi as an example, so I won't make an exception here. Yes, it has good graphics, but it also has oodles of playability (a term so woolly I don't really like to use it anyway). Mario Tennis? Huge big shovels of playability. Jet Set Radio? Operation Flashpoint? Max Payne? That’s right, sufferers of the Edge Reader syndrome are unable to see past good graphics to a good game, which is a tad ironic. It is often them who shout the loudest about people being seduced by great graphics yet missing the awful game.
Amiga was just as bad for style over content as modern consoles, which is really what you are trying to get at. Do you not remember the thousands of movie licences that spawned dull platformers? Probably not as the number one symptom of the Edge Reader syndrome is that your eyes are blinkered to forget about games like these, and the mountains of other “retro” games that were totally rubbish. Bedroom coding created thousands of rubbish games weekly, and it was relatively easy to get these published. Magazines had an impossible task in even listing the names of these, so picking a game was a little like Russian roulette – only the gun has 25 barrels and only one is empty.
None of those are really remakes though - they are "in the same vein". If you changed the games name you would never link Metal Gear Solid to the original other than saying they are both espionage games.
I would say you don’t really remake computer games – you make games influenced by the original. Remake is too strong a word.
I would say you don’t really remake computer games – you make games influenced by the original. Remake is too strong a word.
Bonus wrote:
> The main problem with old games is that they aren't very good. Few
> games from yesteryear would cut the mustard in line with today's
> classics, you may get away with doing remakes of classics such as
> Cannon Foder, but I very much doubt the Comand and Conquer
> generation would appreciate it as much as I did when it first
> appeared on the scene. I can go back much further and name games
> such as Hover Bover and Frogger which I had on my Commodre 64, but
> again, rehashes of these games would be and are basically quite
> crap.
Oh, I agree. Rehashes and remakes of old games are terrible and never work. I mean, you only need to look at new games like Metal Gear Solid, Sonic adventure 2, Mario 64 and the soon to be released Spy Hunter to see that...
> The main problem with old games is that they aren't very good. Few
> games from yesteryear would cut the mustard in line with today's
> classics, you may get away with doing remakes of classics such as
> Cannon Foder, but I very much doubt the Comand and Conquer
> generation would appreciate it as much as I did when it first
> appeared on the scene. I can go back much further and name games
> such as Hover Bover and Frogger which I had on my Commodre 64, but
> again, rehashes of these games would be and are basically quite
> crap.
Oh, I agree. Rehashes and remakes of old games are terrible and never work. I mean, you only need to look at new games like Metal Gear Solid, Sonic adventure 2, Mario 64 and the soon to be released Spy Hunter to see that...
I must agree with PB they don't make them like they use to.
Playability has been lost along the way somewhere.
The good old days of the Amiga seem a distant memory, when games main objective was playability not graphics. My favourite games of all time include Speedball 2, Sensible Soccer and Bubble Bobble. These games look good but play better.
I say bring back playability, and the GBA is leading the way!
Playability has been lost along the way somewhere.
The good old days of the Amiga seem a distant memory, when games main objective was playability not graphics. My favourite games of all time include Speedball 2, Sensible Soccer and Bubble Bobble. These games look good but play better.
I say bring back playability, and the GBA is leading the way!
The main problem with old games is that they aren't very good. Few games from yesteryear would cut the mustard in line with today's classics, you may get away with doing remakes of classics such as Cannon Foder, but I very much doubt the Comand and Conquer generation would appreciate it as much as I did when it first appeared on the scene. I can go back much further and name games such as Hover Bover and Frogger which I had on my Commodre 64, but again, rehashes of these games would be and are basically quite crap.
Retro updates can be very good you know, because many people are too young to remember the originals.
I just think you are taking a little bit of what I have labelled the "Edge Reader" phenomenon i.e. old and obscure = great, new stuff = listless and boring. Please note the use of the words "a little bit".
Modern gaming is as good or bad as it ever was. I really don't want to go back to a template of short sharp high score gaming. It has never really died, and when it works (see Crazy Taxi or Tony Hawk) it can be a blissful experience. Arcade gaming almost by definition harks back to the "retro" days where games where pick up and play as there was little you could complicate a game with due to the crude systems running the software. However, we can do so much more now, so why turn our noses up at variety?
I know "retro" RPGs exists and I'm generalizing a little, but I think what I'm saying still stands. Players today still want the pick up and play element sometimes, but look at the number of people who out and buy the annual Final Fantasy game. People demand a greater depth and variety from their gaming and high score gaming is slowly becoming less and less popular. Sure, there is still almost always a score somewhere on screen, but you are usually trying to achieve something totally unconnected to that score.
We are still very early in the computer games industry and hence are still seeing plenty of innovative games. The Sims? Black and White? I don't think either really worked (particularly the later) but they are progressions. Half Life added a story element to the relatively new FPS genre and Deus Ex has taken that idea and totally revamped how FPS play with its multiple routes. We've seen the survival horror genre take wings and sports titles are always pushing at the boundaries in an effort to stick out from the crowd. Racing titles have taken realism and made it a mainstream obsession, becoming almost a necessity in any racer that takes itself seriously. We've seen club culture affect both sound and graphics - with Jet Set Radio hinting at a revolutionary new strand of game art work. Eventually photo realistic graphics are de rigueur so to be different and fresh you need something like cell shading to distort the norm. Dare I mention the word "impressionist"?
Shenume and MMORPGs are striving to create living, breathing worlds in which your actions affect your surroundings as much as they affect your playing. They've taken the 3D worlds Mario 64 and Tomb Raider first showed us and fleshed them out into living, breathing environments. The Internet boom has seen new ways of playing games and we can see a game, which started as an amateur project, Counter Strike, still holding its place at the top of the most played on-line game list.
We are not in a time of stagnation. We are in a time of change. Gaming is mass market, meaning that you do get your lazy developers releasing shoddy titles with slick marketing to make themselves a quick buck. Who can blame them? They are a business and that's what they exist to do. However, mass market has brought far more good to the gaming table than bad. I can walk into my local games shop and select form a huge range of titles, and purchase with my head held high knowing my hobby is "accepted" (for what's its worth). New games are being developed to cater for the post-pub games - stuff like Samba De Amigo or Mario Party (don't knock it until you try).
You're not, but I know some people putting across a similar point of view as you would bemoan the FIFA series and its like. Do you have to buy these titles? Nope, but hundreds of thousands do and are very happy. Their money is pumped back into the industry at all stages and how in the World could that ever be a bad thing?
I love being a gamer now. Its an exciting time I the only way I want developers to look at the past is to note how games that are fun work best, though I don't think anyone forgot that anyway.
Modern gaming is as good or bad as it ever was. I really don't want to go back to a template of short sharp high score gaming. It has never really died, and when it works (see Crazy Taxi or Tony Hawk) it can be a blissful experience. Arcade gaming almost by definition harks back to the "retro" days where games where pick up and play as there was little you could complicate a game with due to the crude systems running the software. However, we can do so much more now, so why turn our noses up at variety?
I know "retro" RPGs exists and I'm generalizing a little, but I think what I'm saying still stands. Players today still want the pick up and play element sometimes, but look at the number of people who out and buy the annual Final Fantasy game. People demand a greater depth and variety from their gaming and high score gaming is slowly becoming less and less popular. Sure, there is still almost always a score somewhere on screen, but you are usually trying to achieve something totally unconnected to that score.
We are still very early in the computer games industry and hence are still seeing plenty of innovative games. The Sims? Black and White? I don't think either really worked (particularly the later) but they are progressions. Half Life added a story element to the relatively new FPS genre and Deus Ex has taken that idea and totally revamped how FPS play with its multiple routes. We've seen the survival horror genre take wings and sports titles are always pushing at the boundaries in an effort to stick out from the crowd. Racing titles have taken realism and made it a mainstream obsession, becoming almost a necessity in any racer that takes itself seriously. We've seen club culture affect both sound and graphics - with Jet Set Radio hinting at a revolutionary new strand of game art work. Eventually photo realistic graphics are de rigueur so to be different and fresh you need something like cell shading to distort the norm. Dare I mention the word "impressionist"?
Shenume and MMORPGs are striving to create living, breathing worlds in which your actions affect your surroundings as much as they affect your playing. They've taken the 3D worlds Mario 64 and Tomb Raider first showed us and fleshed them out into living, breathing environments. The Internet boom has seen new ways of playing games and we can see a game, which started as an amateur project, Counter Strike, still holding its place at the top of the most played on-line game list.
We are not in a time of stagnation. We are in a time of change. Gaming is mass market, meaning that you do get your lazy developers releasing shoddy titles with slick marketing to make themselves a quick buck. Who can blame them? They are a business and that's what they exist to do. However, mass market has brought far more good to the gaming table than bad. I can walk into my local games shop and select form a huge range of titles, and purchase with my head held high knowing my hobby is "accepted" (for what's its worth). New games are being developed to cater for the post-pub games - stuff like Samba De Amigo or Mario Party (don't knock it until you try).
You're not, but I know some people putting across a similar point of view as you would bemoan the FIFA series and its like. Do you have to buy these titles? Nope, but hundreds of thousands do and are very happy. Their money is pumped back into the industry at all stages and how in the World could that ever be a bad thing?
I love being a gamer now. Its an exciting time I the only way I want developers to look at the past is to note how games that are fun work best, though I don't think anyone forgot that anyway.
The future is always best designed by the events of the past.
Just because I say we should have a return to a retro ideal, doesn't mean that I want to see retro graphics. no no no. I never said nor implied that. I have not made the mistake of putting on those limited edition rose tinted specs either, this is based on playing years of gaming and through emulation of said older systems.
As you say, it is years of work compared to the last 6 months, but is it just the last six months where something has been amiss? There used to be a soul to games, not just gamers that doesn't exist in a lot of modern day games. It's the feeling that these games are churned out.
Yes, there were a lot of mistakes in the past too, and some games that should be consigned to a container marked toxic and buried deep underground, but to learn from the triumphs and mistakes from the past and yank the best bits from history is an evolutionary step in itself. What we have now is just marketing and heartless games SOMETIMES. There are still classics, and still games that are worth playing, but the market is being increasingly squeezed by 'new media' style company directors, keen to see games as a new movie or music genre. What we need, if this is going to be the case, is the cult underground or arthouse classics of these media in gaming.
Just because I say we should have a return to a retro ideal, doesn't mean that I want to see retro graphics. no no no. I never said nor implied that. I have not made the mistake of putting on those limited edition rose tinted specs either, this is based on playing years of gaming and through emulation of said older systems.
As you say, it is years of work compared to the last 6 months, but is it just the last six months where something has been amiss? There used to be a soul to games, not just gamers that doesn't exist in a lot of modern day games. It's the feeling that these games are churned out.
Yes, there were a lot of mistakes in the past too, and some games that should be consigned to a container marked toxic and buried deep underground, but to learn from the triumphs and mistakes from the past and yank the best bits from history is an evolutionary step in itself. What we have now is just marketing and heartless games SOMETIMES. There are still classics, and still games that are worth playing, but the market is being increasingly squeezed by 'new media' style company directors, keen to see games as a new movie or music genre. What we need, if this is going to be the case, is the cult underground or arthouse classics of these media in gaming.
Page: