rezerekted
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
- Messages
- 3,054
No, the magic has gone for me. It was all new and exciting at one time but now I just buy games out of habit.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Old timers : Do you REALLY enjoy the games today like past games?
- Thread starter ShuttleLuv
- Start date
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
That's sad.
Might've gone that way for me, but I got an even more demanding (and expensive) hobby
so now I have to be pickier with my game time, and having that limitation makes it more fun when I do play. There are still some excellent games being made. You just have to pick them wisely.I spent my youth in the Arcade and I'm only 31. My parents dropped us off in the Arcade while they did their thing in the mall.
I'm hardly an old timer, but I grew up with Arcades, NES, Genesis, SNES, etc. Games were not "better" then. There is something to be said for the more simplistic games of the past. Games have come a loooong way. Games from my youth are minigames within games these days.
I'm hardly an old timer, but I grew up with Arcades, NES, Genesis, SNES, etc. Games were not "better" then. There is something to be said for the more simplistic games of the past. Games have come a loooong way. Games from my youth are minigames within games these days.
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
What I really like are the games that come out now that are similar to the classics, but with all of the conveniences and extra computational power of modern machines. For example, Axiom Verge, Hyper Light Drifter, Shovel Knight, etc. They all play like highly polished games out of the 80s and 90s, only they have far more intricate levels, increased visuals (within the aesthetic), AI improvements, etc. Many also have more modern save data styles, mod support, etc. I've said this in some other threads, but I actually prefer Axiom Verge to Super Metroid. I don't know exactly what it is, but it just feels a bit tighter, the areas seem a little bigger (though I'd have to compare maps to know for sure...) Games like these still make me feel like anything I played back when I was a kid, but are less frustrating (due to decades of game dev experience these days I guess), and without the downsides like slow-down, flickering, and other artifacts of the times when the hardware couldn't keep up with the software.
I still do love to hit the ol' MAME collection once in a while for that unadulterated experience.
Oh, I totally agree. We are an instant gratification society and prefer most things served up on a platter to us
I agree. Controls are big thing for me, the more simple they are, they better. I think some people like and can use the more complex controls but for a casual games, you can use 20% of them and get 80% of the effectiveness for your time investment.
DeathFromBelow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,315
I feel like there was a period of high investment and creativity in the mid-to-late 90s that died with the dot-com bubble and the beginning of the Sony/Microsoft console graphics arms race in 2001. Ever-improving graphics became more important than gameplay, it drew in players and raised the cost of entry for other game developers.
The rise of digital distribution and the failure of Moore's law seem to be reversing these trends.
The rise of digital distribution and the failure of Moore's law seem to be reversing these trends.
Last edited:
Youn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 5,973
Consider taking a break then... after a year or generation of not paying attention to games, coming back to it can feel exciting. Then again, if you thought it was exciting because of graphics upgrades you may need to wait longer to feel any sorta jump in quality there (unlike back then when 1 year made a bigger difference)
rezerekted
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
- Messages
- 3,054
Yea, I may do that.
Comixbooks
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 22,023
Once games started going 3-D shit started to change which is the main reason why they all seem the said best said in A Theory of Fun by Ralph Koster who was designer dragon lead designer of Ultima Online in 1997 the 1st and best 2-D MMORPG game without a level counter. The only game of recent time that comes close to that feeling is Divinity Original Sin series and a few years after in 2001 Dark Age of Camelot. Nobody has come close to making a formula as good as Ultima Online was. Patheon Rise of the Fallen looks like it could be a really great experience similar to where Dark Age of Camelot left off. Destiny 2 look promising but then again it's alot of pew pew pew and some candy coated stuff that kinda made the 1st game addicting. The only game that gave me a good buzz that was a first person shooter was Borderlands 1 and the dlc the simple graphics wasteland settings just was a good combination unless it's because I played the game on a projector at the time and not a monitor but I played it on a Monitor later on. Also fallout 3 New Vegas was pretty nice and the dlc.
I think alot of it has to do with monitors lighting desktop setup free time your personal overall physical condition if you are eating Salads and make a single coca cola you can get a really good experience from a game. The overall thing with gaming now is BIG BIG BIG monitors that just basically zap anything you thought you had out of your system it might looks good but your reaction time is slowed and requires more effort playing on a 40"+ inch monitor which I just think is insane cause you are taking in all that light and your inner self is disorted to the point where you and whatever spacial skills you have don't feel like navigating though a big nausea experience which is why I went from 27" monitor back to a 24" monitor. 27" is good from the distance though 30" is probably as big as I would ever go at that size I would want it at least 6' feet away from me.
Playing on small 25" CRT TVs back in the NES SNES days and even Atari was a hella lot more fun back then.
Take Dishonored 1 vs: Dishonored 2
They switched the life blood of the game by making in a entire different game engine the art style is good looking but it doesn't look like the digital oil painting look of Dishonored 1. When the user can see the craft of the game the game becomes alot more then just a game you can sell the digital pixels it adds to the user experience beyond the story or content of the game. Which is why DESIGN is everything I got that from a Carmine Infantino book who created Batman comic covers based on good design and the entire batman series came to life simply because what an art teacher told him. Level design is really important placement of the maps together the overall structure and craft of the game beyond the verbal or communicational content.
I think alot of it has to do with monitors lighting desktop setup free time your personal overall physical condition if you are eating Salads and make a single coca cola you can get a really good experience from a game. The overall thing with gaming now is BIG BIG BIG monitors that just basically zap anything you thought you had out of your system it might looks good but your reaction time is slowed and requires more effort playing on a 40"+ inch monitor which I just think is insane cause you are taking in all that light and your inner self is disorted to the point where you and whatever spacial skills you have don't feel like navigating though a big nausea experience which is why I went from 27" monitor back to a 24" monitor. 27" is good from the distance though 30" is probably as big as I would ever go at that size I would want it at least 6' feet away from me.
Playing on small 25" CRT TVs back in the NES SNES days and even Atari was a hella lot more fun back then.
Take Dishonored 1 vs: Dishonored 2
They switched the life blood of the game by making in a entire different game engine the art style is good looking but it doesn't look like the digital oil painting look of Dishonored 1. When the user can see the craft of the game the game becomes alot more then just a game you can sell the digital pixels it adds to the user experience beyond the story or content of the game. Which is why DESIGN is everything I got that from a Carmine Infantino book who created Batman comic covers based on good design and the entire batman series came to life simply because what an art teacher told him. Level design is really important placement of the maps together the overall structure and craft of the game beyond the verbal or communicational content.
Last edited:
auntjemima
[H]ard DCOTM x2
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 12,149
No.
I do, to an extent. I think with the addition of wife, kids, a divorce, a new wife .... life kind of got in the way a bit. But to be honest, now that I'm older, it became more of my "relax/unwind" spot more so today than when I was young.
I'm 42 .... people I play PUBG with call me "old man" or "grandpa".
I'm 42 .... people I play PUBG with call me "old man" or "grandpa".
Man, I'm 31 and they say that about me. It's even funnier because they all say shit like "Still living in his parents basement probably." It's as if you're supposed to stop playing games once you get a little older as if you haven't been playing them for 25+ years.
Airbrushkid
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2007
- Messages
- 2,430
Wow I'm 58 and I play 7 days a week. And I love shooters. Plus I don't live in my parents basement. My parents are dead. I own a couple house's.
BulletDust
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,057
I've still got a Commodore 64 and two Amiga's, all expanded with accelerators and CF based hard drives and they're every bit as good as I remember them, if not better.
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
Yes. This is correct.
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
One thing that really gets me, is that when I was younger and gaming I would see these games, really get into them, and then say man this game would really be amazing if only they would fix up some of these issues. And the community could be better and bigger if they would polish up the UI, patch out broken balance issues and exploits and so on. 15 years later and none of those games have become that way, most of them have just died. Companies continue to churn out games with no regard to the issues. You would think somewhere up in these massive multi billion dollar gaming companies people would have a checklist to run through to correct mistakes made in previous games. Instead the same issues keep popping up over and over. Object oriented programing just doesn't seem to be fixing issues. I guess this makes it harder for me to enjoy games when I know these issues should have been fixed and NEVER come back a decade ago. Think of something like setting your sensitivity in a game for your mouse. Why doesn't EVERY game ever made now have a little box that allows you to type in the sensitivity to get it the way you want it. Yet somehow game companies keep screwing this up. sometimes the mouse just feels jacked up, others you only have a slider and have to dig into a config file to get to a number. This is so core to the game, to be able to finely set your sensitivity to the exact value that you are used to so you can jump from one game to the next. Yet I constantly end up in games that I cannot do this easily.
Its not because I am old, have kids, don't have time, it's because games these days just aren't as dynamic, fast and flexible. IMO counter strike started this trend and lots of other games just polished it off.
Some things I am tired of.
Hey balance is important but really stop changing stuff constantly at some point you have to accept your game as balanced. I remember when you could play a game like hldm, or quake and whatever skills you built would largely be useful years later as they wouldn't go and nerf the gauss cannon or rail gun till its useless. Just let it go, its ok if one gun is used more than others. Now days the devs just cant stop screwing around with stuff. You know in the old days games were not balanced better, what happened was everyone knew that most things would not change so they created balance around the game the way it was played. They made maps to deal with balance issues and so on, or just accepted things. As a person with less time now I really don't find it amusing to waste my time trying to keep up with the constant changing of gun values, just to essentially shoot 30 of the same boring items in the same way over and over. If I want to play a hero in some game and invest in getting good at that I don't want to turn around 4 months later and see the devs go, oh, haha you nerfed that. Sure the kids who play 8 hours a day can just switch to one of the other 10 heros they are very good at , but someone with less time just sees their hero get screwed. And either has to abandon it and relearn for months or throw their hands up and quit. Tribes ascend was awful for this, a literally constantly changing meta game. Like 3 times they completely reworked the whole thing. Sometimes a system that is stable is way better than one that is not even if the stable system is not exactly optimal. To me counterstrike used to be the prime example of this, tons of broke shit and balance issues but because it just stayed the same for a decade people were used to it. They consider it how it is meant to be.
Weak or shallow complications. Counterstrike was the pioneer perpetrator of this. You really only have like 3 types of guns in CS in the way they work, all the rest is just rehash the same gun over and over with modifications to the spread, damage, armor penentration etc.... Some how some find this really exciting to know these minor differences in the power of weapon X or Y. But ultimately most players except the very best just point and click burst fire no matter what weapon they are using. So you have 30 guns which boil down to maybe 3 play styles. TF2 became like this after the hats, they just kept adding minor variants of weapons. Most games can be very simple and yet dynamic with just about 10 or so weapons.
Total lack of understanding how to be reasonable. Why is it that games seem to come in 2 flavors way too much shit going on, or way to simple. We have this massive trend toward only allowing players to use 2 weapons. But then they force people to learn 30 heros which amounts to 60 weapons. Vs the old days when you were just 1 person and you were given a simple set of 10 or so weapons, each on being unique to work with. Then you got games with horrendous amounts of key binds on the other side like PUBG. The old games IMO while not perfect struck a better balance. Just having like a handful of unique weapons. And letting you use most of them. I get it people want simpler but when did simpler have to be forced down to 2, could 6 weapons have been acceptable to give people some flexibility?
Its not because I am old, have kids, don't have time, it's because games these days just aren't as dynamic, fast and flexible. IMO counter strike started this trend and lots of other games just polished it off.
Some things I am tired of.
Hey balance is important but really stop changing stuff constantly at some point you have to accept your game as balanced. I remember when you could play a game like hldm, or quake and whatever skills you built would largely be useful years later as they wouldn't go and nerf the gauss cannon or rail gun till its useless. Just let it go, its ok if one gun is used more than others. Now days the devs just cant stop screwing around with stuff. You know in the old days games were not balanced better, what happened was everyone knew that most things would not change so they created balance around the game the way it was played. They made maps to deal with balance issues and so on, or just accepted things. As a person with less time now I really don't find it amusing to waste my time trying to keep up with the constant changing of gun values, just to essentially shoot 30 of the same boring items in the same way over and over. If I want to play a hero in some game and invest in getting good at that I don't want to turn around 4 months later and see the devs go, oh, haha you nerfed that. Sure the kids who play 8 hours a day can just switch to one of the other 10 heros they are very good at , but someone with less time just sees their hero get screwed. And either has to abandon it and relearn for months or throw their hands up and quit. Tribes ascend was awful for this, a literally constantly changing meta game. Like 3 times they completely reworked the whole thing. Sometimes a system that is stable is way better than one that is not even if the stable system is not exactly optimal. To me counterstrike used to be the prime example of this, tons of broke shit and balance issues but because it just stayed the same for a decade people were used to it. They consider it how it is meant to be.
Weak or shallow complications. Counterstrike was the pioneer perpetrator of this. You really only have like 3 types of guns in CS in the way they work, all the rest is just rehash the same gun over and over with modifications to the spread, damage, armor penentration etc.... Some how some find this really exciting to know these minor differences in the power of weapon X or Y. But ultimately most players except the very best just point and click burst fire no matter what weapon they are using. So you have 30 guns which boil down to maybe 3 play styles. TF2 became like this after the hats, they just kept adding minor variants of weapons. Most games can be very simple and yet dynamic with just about 10 or so weapons.
Total lack of understanding how to be reasonable. Why is it that games seem to come in 2 flavors way too much shit going on, or way to simple. We have this massive trend toward only allowing players to use 2 weapons. But then they force people to learn 30 heros which amounts to 60 weapons. Vs the old days when you were just 1 person and you were given a simple set of 10 or so weapons, each on being unique to work with. Then you got games with horrendous amounts of key binds on the other side like PUBG. The old games IMO while not perfect struck a better balance. Just having like a handful of unique weapons. And letting you use most of them. I get it people want simpler but when did simpler have to be forced down to 2, could 6 weapons have been acceptable to give people some flexibility?