The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
We're mostly all gamers. That gives us something in common. We're competitive. We like to win. We like to play. We like to immerse ourselves from time to time in a cracking good console or PC game and detach ourselves from our surroundings ala Sony's 'third place'. We like to beat machines as well as people when we go head to head against an opponent, and more often than not we don't really differentiate between the two.
And we're lucky too. Those of us born in the mid 60s were teenagers when gaming really started to go mainstream. The bedroom coders of the 80s are now running some of the biggest developer houses and software publishing companies in the world. Those of you born in the mid 70s would have been brought up on Sega, Nintendo, and Sony, perhaps getting a Playstation or N64 for your 16th birthday and so on.
But there will come a day in our lives when the coders of the future aren't quite on the same wavelengths as our generation, and they won't have to be because they will be creating games for our children and not us. I can forsee a time when avid gamers in their mid-30s today are going to be looking at release lists later on down the line and thinking: 'Hmm, seen all this before, where's all the Sonics and the Tony Hawks and the Max Paynes?'
There'll be genres out there in the future that we just won't 'get', there'll be ingame references to things that just go straight over our heads, but there will be a whole new generation of gamers out there lapping it up.
The coders of today, whose games we can relate to now, just won't be around 20 or 30 years down the line, they'll have retired, hopefully with a well earned pension. There'll be a new breed, a new collective consciousness about what games are all about and where they're headed, and I'm really afraid of getting left behind.
I can see myself 20 years down the line as I can see my mother now when she's faced with a Notebook and Windows 2000 Pro, she can just about plug it in, but from then on she's asking 'So...what button do I push now? Who IS Bill Gates and why am I supposed to hate him again?'
Although I can't see the technology getting THAT complicated for me, I CAN see the games getting just too much hard work for my ageing brain. A few years ago, an RPG was simply a case of equip items, kill monster, get gold, get better items, kill more monsters...it was fun, but it was simple. Games are now a lot more complicated. Take Maximo for the PS2 which is just around the corner. You've got 'combos', you've got alternative routes through each area, you've got to 'pay' Death to let you have another continue if you die, if you don't have the money he'll finish you off for good.
It's all a far cry from spinning Sonic the Hedgehog through GreenHill Zone and collecting rings. There's more depth to Maximo, there's more gameplay, there's better graphics, but there are also a lot more things to keep track of. This of course is a good trend, but I don't want to see this kind of trend getting out of hand where I'm presented with a game that has so many ways of playing it that I just get lost, wondering what to do next, a bit like my mum and her Notebook.
I think the signs to watch out for in your middle-aged gaming life are things like the word 'retro' starting to appeal more, catching yourself glancing at those dusty old Dreamcast games and wondering how much they'll be worth in 10 years time, struggling to keep up with storylines in Final Fantasy, and looking confounded when being presented with a joypad with more than four buttons on it. I'm still getting my head around 4 shoulder-buttons, 4 analogue buttons, 2 analogue sticks, start, select and the d-pad (at least they still call them d-pads after all this time...) on the PS2 controller. The final straw is when you think that Tony Hawk's Pro Skateboarder would sound a bit better with a Radio 2 playlist as its musical backing.
Maybe playing games for the last 20 years is starting to take its toll on me, I dunno. I just hope I still find new games to enjoy another 20 years from now. I might well do because console games have always had a cyclical nature to them. I'm just waiting for the next Micro Machines one, that's all.
And we're lucky too. Those of us born in the mid 60s were teenagers when gaming really started to go mainstream. The bedroom coders of the 80s are now running some of the biggest developer houses and software publishing companies in the world. Those of you born in the mid 70s would have been brought up on Sega, Nintendo, and Sony, perhaps getting a Playstation or N64 for your 16th birthday and so on.
But there will come a day in our lives when the coders of the future aren't quite on the same wavelengths as our generation, and they won't have to be because they will be creating games for our children and not us. I can forsee a time when avid gamers in their mid-30s today are going to be looking at release lists later on down the line and thinking: 'Hmm, seen all this before, where's all the Sonics and the Tony Hawks and the Max Paynes?'
There'll be genres out there in the future that we just won't 'get', there'll be ingame references to things that just go straight over our heads, but there will be a whole new generation of gamers out there lapping it up.
The coders of today, whose games we can relate to now, just won't be around 20 or 30 years down the line, they'll have retired, hopefully with a well earned pension. There'll be a new breed, a new collective consciousness about what games are all about and where they're headed, and I'm really afraid of getting left behind.
I can see myself 20 years down the line as I can see my mother now when she's faced with a Notebook and Windows 2000 Pro, she can just about plug it in, but from then on she's asking 'So...what button do I push now? Who IS Bill Gates and why am I supposed to hate him again?'
Although I can't see the technology getting THAT complicated for me, I CAN see the games getting just too much hard work for my ageing brain. A few years ago, an RPG was simply a case of equip items, kill monster, get gold, get better items, kill more monsters...it was fun, but it was simple. Games are now a lot more complicated. Take Maximo for the PS2 which is just around the corner. You've got 'combos', you've got alternative routes through each area, you've got to 'pay' Death to let you have another continue if you die, if you don't have the money he'll finish you off for good.
It's all a far cry from spinning Sonic the Hedgehog through GreenHill Zone and collecting rings. There's more depth to Maximo, there's more gameplay, there's better graphics, but there are also a lot more things to keep track of. This of course is a good trend, but I don't want to see this kind of trend getting out of hand where I'm presented with a game that has so many ways of playing it that I just get lost, wondering what to do next, a bit like my mum and her Notebook.
I think the signs to watch out for in your middle-aged gaming life are things like the word 'retro' starting to appeal more, catching yourself glancing at those dusty old Dreamcast games and wondering how much they'll be worth in 10 years time, struggling to keep up with storylines in Final Fantasy, and looking confounded when being presented with a joypad with more than four buttons on it. I'm still getting my head around 4 shoulder-buttons, 4 analogue buttons, 2 analogue sticks, start, select and the d-pad (at least they still call them d-pads after all this time...) on the PS2 controller. The final straw is when you think that Tony Hawk's Pro Skateboarder would sound a bit better with a Radio 2 playlist as its musical backing.
Maybe playing games for the last 20 years is starting to take its toll on me, I dunno. I just hope I still find new games to enjoy another 20 years from now. I might well do because console games have always had a cyclical nature to them. I'm just waiting for the next Micro Machines one, that's all.
Page:
Oi, speak English you lot! Pah!
Anyway, I'm getting on a bit myself and games have still not passed me by yet, much to the annoyance of my wife, who I think is still hoping that it is a phase I will grow out of.
The thing is that anyone who keeps up-to-date with at least one console from the current generations should have no problems with any new games that appear. Most people can adapt to things, even at an older age, and it is myth to suggest that people learn less or at a slower pace as they get older, they are just less reluctant to learn new things. That does not, of course, relate to young children, whose brains are still growing and can take in information much faster.
I think there were games back in the 'old days' that were simply about killing and nothing else, there were those games that had no depth. It is perhaps because the games companies have seen what games sold more copies that gaming has gone down the route that it has. Don't forget that in the early days there were a lot of arcade conversions that allowed you only a small amount of diversion from one particular action (such as swinging a sword) so things may not have changed all that much.
Still, I'm confident that there will always be those games companies that allow for a certain 'return to form' in the ways that Grix suggested, so us oldies will still feel at home, no matter how senile we get....
Anyway, I'm getting on a bit myself and games have still not passed me by yet, much to the annoyance of my wife, who I think is still hoping that it is a phase I will grow out of.
The thing is that anyone who keeps up-to-date with at least one console from the current generations should have no problems with any new games that appear. Most people can adapt to things, even at an older age, and it is myth to suggest that people learn less or at a slower pace as they get older, they are just less reluctant to learn new things. That does not, of course, relate to young children, whose brains are still growing and can take in information much faster.
I think there were games back in the 'old days' that were simply about killing and nothing else, there were those games that had no depth. It is perhaps because the games companies have seen what games sold more copies that gaming has gone down the route that it has. Don't forget that in the early days there were a lot of arcade conversions that allowed you only a small amount of diversion from one particular action (such as swinging a sword) so things may not have changed all that much.
Still, I'm confident that there will always be those games companies that allow for a certain 'return to form' in the ways that Grix suggested, so us oldies will still feel at home, no matter how senile we get....
Pah. Shut it your mouth. :0)
Grix Thraves wrote:
> POP, because I like this topic, and I want to see what people think of what I've
> wrote too.
My thoughts on what you wrote:
You should have written either "I wrote", or "I've written", but not "I've wrote".
Hope that helps ;)
> POP, because I like this topic, and I want to see what people think of what I've
> wrote too.
My thoughts on what you wrote:
You should have written either "I wrote", or "I've written", but not "I've wrote".
Hope that helps ;)
POP, because I like this topic, and I want to see what people think of what I've wrote too.
Solskjær_24 wrote:
> AfroJoe wrote:
"I was born in 1985 which is classed as the
>
> 'mid-eighties' strangely enough and I started playing games consoles at 8 or
> 9
> and the consoles that were around then were Super Nintendo and Sega Mega
> Drive
> just coming out into the shops. I was impressed, but that is nothing
> to what I
> am with consoles and games these days. So if that goes right
> then in another 10
> years I'll be.... errr.... super-impressed with
> consoles and games."
Same year as me, and you didn't start till you were
> 8??? I started when I was 5, with the NES.
---------
I was confused as to waht games consoles did back then. :D
And I didn't have any older brothers playing them either. My brothers did - me, and they are only 7 and 4 so they know all about games from young age.
But I'm talking a lot of crap here so I'll shut up. :-)
> AfroJoe wrote:
"I was born in 1985 which is classed as the
>
> 'mid-eighties' strangely enough and I started playing games consoles at 8 or
> 9
> and the consoles that were around then were Super Nintendo and Sega Mega
> Drive
> just coming out into the shops. I was impressed, but that is nothing
> to what I
> am with consoles and games these days. So if that goes right
> then in another 10
> years I'll be.... errr.... super-impressed with
> consoles and games."
Same year as me, and you didn't start till you were
> 8??? I started when I was 5, with the NES.
---------
I was confused as to waht games consoles did back then. :D
And I didn't have any older brothers playing them either. My brothers did - me, and they are only 7 and 4 so they know all about games from young age.
But I'm talking a lot of crap here so I'll shut up. :-)
VenomByte wrote:
"I can honestly say there are more SNES games I'd like to own than there are PS2 games I'd like to own."
Completely agree, and don't know why. Perhaps that's just our era, and we want to stay in it... but the games really WERE so much more fun back then.
Only game that's really been as good as they were back then, was... *drumroll*... Skies of Arcadia! Did you see it coming! :0)
Seriously though, I believe that many of the old games have this kind of magic to them, that goes beyond anything that's made today. Something that just makes you fall utterly in love with it, this bizzare world that makes perfect sense. Nobody cares how dark it is, or how big your sword is... they just want to go further and further into the game, and the more you go along, the better it becomes, opening up, becoming more challenging, and exciting you as you reach the finish.
Skies of Arcadia is the only game that makes me feel this way that's been released around this time. Tell a lie, Ocarina of Time was great too... a lot of people didn't like that, though, the types that will have read the title, first and last line of most of the topics on here... ;0)
Half the problem is attention span. Designers seem to think, that in order to keep someone's attention, you need to have big explosions every now and again, to make sure they keep playing. And unfortunatly, that's true half the time... if someone isn't immedietely interested, that's as far as they'll go.
And it isn't JUST the way that someone is. It's not about taste. I used to HATE Radiohead, and Pink Floyd, and all the stuff I love now. I just couldn't understand why it was so different, and therefore meant nothing to me. Took me a few punches to my mind before I finally started to like, and love it.
This, I think, is a Special Reserve first. I'm going to use graphical aids in a reply.
Here's a graph of the way games today are designed... at least in my opinion.
http://www.swordspines.com/pictures/Today.JPG
As you can see, over time, there isn't much stabality. It's just this sort of jumpy affect... a sort of high you get from a game, which follows by a low.
Why's this? Obvious really, they're crap designers. Think about it. Read a story by some kid.
"BOOM! i ran in with guns and killed every1"
Idiot stuff, and exactly how stuff works today. It's the BAM BOOM BAM CRASH way of life, and it sucks.
Now check this graph:
http://www.swordspines.com/pictures/Old.JPG
That's much better. Perhaps it doesn't accelerate as fast as any of the new games... but once it's got you, it's not going to let go, whatsoever. This sort of design isn't about bigger and better explosions each time... this is about telling a story, captivating an audience, and ensuring everything is never repetitive, never boring, and always moving, if not at a huge pace.
It's the way I like 'em, and unfortunatly, now, many don't. You don't get anything from games anymore.
The Sims is another example of a great today's game. It doesn't use the BAM BOOM CRASH sort of princible... it allows you to build onwards, making it more enjoyable as you go along.
Still not convinced? I'll prove it to you.
Play a game of The Sims. Build up your family, get married, raise children, earn money, work your way up the ladder of success, and be happy with the design of your house.
Ok?
Right, now, start another game. Cheat. Get as much money as you can. Spend it on whatever you want.
You with me now? Ok? Good.
Perhaps it IS the feeling of progress that makes a good game... but it's certainly not bigger and better explosions.
"I can honestly say there are more SNES games I'd like to own than there are PS2 games I'd like to own."
Completely agree, and don't know why. Perhaps that's just our era, and we want to stay in it... but the games really WERE so much more fun back then.
Only game that's really been as good as they were back then, was... *drumroll*... Skies of Arcadia! Did you see it coming! :0)
Seriously though, I believe that many of the old games have this kind of magic to them, that goes beyond anything that's made today. Something that just makes you fall utterly in love with it, this bizzare world that makes perfect sense. Nobody cares how dark it is, or how big your sword is... they just want to go further and further into the game, and the more you go along, the better it becomes, opening up, becoming more challenging, and exciting you as you reach the finish.
Skies of Arcadia is the only game that makes me feel this way that's been released around this time. Tell a lie, Ocarina of Time was great too... a lot of people didn't like that, though, the types that will have read the title, first and last line of most of the topics on here... ;0)
Half the problem is attention span. Designers seem to think, that in order to keep someone's attention, you need to have big explosions every now and again, to make sure they keep playing. And unfortunatly, that's true half the time... if someone isn't immedietely interested, that's as far as they'll go.
And it isn't JUST the way that someone is. It's not about taste. I used to HATE Radiohead, and Pink Floyd, and all the stuff I love now. I just couldn't understand why it was so different, and therefore meant nothing to me. Took me a few punches to my mind before I finally started to like, and love it.
This, I think, is a Special Reserve first. I'm going to use graphical aids in a reply.
Here's a graph of the way games today are designed... at least in my opinion.
http://www.swordspines.com/pictures/Today.JPG
As you can see, over time, there isn't much stabality. It's just this sort of jumpy affect... a sort of high you get from a game, which follows by a low.
Why's this? Obvious really, they're crap designers. Think about it. Read a story by some kid.
"BOOM! i ran in with guns and killed every1"
Idiot stuff, and exactly how stuff works today. It's the BAM BOOM BAM CRASH way of life, and it sucks.
Now check this graph:
http://www.swordspines.com/pictures/Old.JPG
That's much better. Perhaps it doesn't accelerate as fast as any of the new games... but once it's got you, it's not going to let go, whatsoever. This sort of design isn't about bigger and better explosions each time... this is about telling a story, captivating an audience, and ensuring everything is never repetitive, never boring, and always moving, if not at a huge pace.
It's the way I like 'em, and unfortunatly, now, many don't. You don't get anything from games anymore.
The Sims is another example of a great today's game. It doesn't use the BAM BOOM CRASH sort of princible... it allows you to build onwards, making it more enjoyable as you go along.
Still not convinced? I'll prove it to you.
Play a game of The Sims. Build up your family, get married, raise children, earn money, work your way up the ladder of success, and be happy with the design of your house.
Ok?
Right, now, start another game. Cheat. Get as much money as you can. Spend it on whatever you want.
You with me now? Ok? Good.
Perhaps it IS the feeling of progress that makes a good game... but it's certainly not bigger and better explosions.
AfroJoe wrote:
"I was born in 1985 which is classed as the
> 'mid-eighties' strangely enough and I started playing games consoles at 8 or 9
> and the consoles that were around then were Super Nintendo and Sega Mega Drive
> just coming out into the shops. I was impressed, but that is nothing to what I
> am with consoles and games these days. So if that goes right then in another 10
> years I'll be.... errr.... super-impressed with consoles and games."
Same year as me, and you didn't start till you were 8??? I started when I was 5, with the NES.
"Nice post!"
You say that alot don't you! And I agree.
"I was born in 1985 which is classed as the
> 'mid-eighties' strangely enough and I started playing games consoles at 8 or 9
> and the consoles that were around then were Super Nintendo and Sega Mega Drive
> just coming out into the shops. I was impressed, but that is nothing to what I
> am with consoles and games these days. So if that goes right then in another 10
> years I'll be.... errr.... super-impressed with consoles and games."
Same year as me, and you didn't start till you were 8??? I started when I was 5, with the NES.
"Nice post!"
You say that alot don't you! And I agree.
The word 'retro' already draws my attention ;)
It's all happened too fast. I started playing games young, and I played games that were slightly dated at the time (not that I knew it back then). I'm only 18. Born in 1983. I shouldn't have a scarily impressive recollection of Spectrum and Commodore games, should I? I've played just about everything that's existed since then, too.
"There'll be genres out there in the future that we just won't 'get', there'll be ingame references to things that just go straight over our heads, but there will be a whole new generation of gamers out there lapping it up. "
I never thought about that... and I'm going to try not to. One day it might happen...
Getting old is something that happens to other people.
Isn't it?
Grix Thraves wrote:
"I do worry one day that games won't appeal to me anymore. I really do hope that's the fault of people that make the games, more than my own."
I've felt that way for a while now. Games don't offer me anything new anymore. Racing, shooting, fighting, sporting, ...all been done before.
What do I find myself playing these days?
Adventure games will keep me going till I finish them, then no more. CBFD was about 18 hours of fun. Nothing since.
The Sims.
UFO: Enemy unknown.
Master Of Orion.
NetStorm
Games which haven't been done a billion times. They are the only games I seem to play.
I can honestly say there are more SNES games I'd like to own than there are PS2 games I'd like to own.
Draw your own conclusions form that...
It's all happened too fast. I started playing games young, and I played games that were slightly dated at the time (not that I knew it back then). I'm only 18. Born in 1983. I shouldn't have a scarily impressive recollection of Spectrum and Commodore games, should I? I've played just about everything that's existed since then, too.
"There'll be genres out there in the future that we just won't 'get', there'll be ingame references to things that just go straight over our heads, but there will be a whole new generation of gamers out there lapping it up. "
I never thought about that... and I'm going to try not to. One day it might happen...
Getting old is something that happens to other people.
Isn't it?
Grix Thraves wrote:
"I do worry one day that games won't appeal to me anymore. I really do hope that's the fault of people that make the games, more than my own."
I've felt that way for a while now. Games don't offer me anything new anymore. Racing, shooting, fighting, sporting, ...all been done before.
What do I find myself playing these days?
Adventure games will keep me going till I finish them, then no more. CBFD was about 18 hours of fun. Nothing since.
The Sims.
UFO: Enemy unknown.
Master Of Orion.
NetStorm
Games which haven't been done a billion times. They are the only games I seem to play.
I can honestly say there are more SNES games I'd like to own than there are PS2 games I'd like to own.
Draw your own conclusions form that...
And interestingly enough, Maximo is supposed to be the kinda "follow up" to Ghouls and Ghosts, another of *OUR* time games. :0)
Great post. I do worry one day that games won't appeal to me anymore. I really do hope that's the fault of people that make the games, more than my own.
But then, hoping to hell, I'll be making them by that time anyway. So I'll try not to bore you. ;0)
Great post. I do worry one day that games won't appeal to me anymore. I really do hope that's the fault of people that make the games, more than my own.
But then, hoping to hell, I'll be making them by that time anyway. So I'll try not to bore you. ;0)
Very nice post FantasyMeister!
I was born in 1985 which is classed as the 'mid-eighties' strangely enough and I started playing games consoles at 8 or 9 and the consoles that were around then were Super Nintendo and Sega Mega Drive just coming out into the shops. I was impressed, but that is nothing to what I am with consoles and games these days. So if that goes right then in another 10 years I'll be.... errr.... super-impressed with consoles and games.
Maybe in 20 years time games will finally be taking toll on me as well. Who knows? I'll still have games to play hopefully.
Nice post!
(PS. If my post there doesn't quite string in with what you have said, don't say I didn't read it. I'm just tired.) :-)
I was born in 1985 which is classed as the 'mid-eighties' strangely enough and I started playing games consoles at 8 or 9 and the consoles that were around then were Super Nintendo and Sega Mega Drive just coming out into the shops. I was impressed, but that is nothing to what I am with consoles and games these days. So if that goes right then in another 10 years I'll be.... errr.... super-impressed with consoles and games.
Maybe in 20 years time games will finally be taking toll on me as well. Who knows? I'll still have games to play hopefully.
Nice post!
(PS. If my post there doesn't quite string in with what you have said, don't say I didn't read it. I'm just tired.) :-)
Page: