Let's discuss videogames

[Benxamix2]

I mean there's pretty much nothing to talk about around here, most of the time. Even if it's because you don't have much spare time, why don't we try to light some little fire? That's like the point of having a forum, isn't it; discuss stuff and keep the site active.


So, are you actually interested in the videogame industry, besides the making of 'em?

For my part, I do. I really am into it.
To put it simple, Team Fortress 2 is my favorite game, and I can tell you I spent over 1400 hours playing it within a year. Greatest FPS ever. Also, besides friends, I used to have a gf to play with as well; not just unknown people from the internet, so it just added to my enjoyment in that game. I'm no longer playing it but I still like it a lot.
As for other game types, I'm into Platform, Terror, RPG, Strategy and even Visual Novels. There was space for Music games like osu! and StepMania, but I'm done with them.
The only genres I don't like are Simulation (excepting several titles like most of Tycoon games) and Sports. They're absolutely obnoxious to me.

Goat Simulator is a real bad game. Random joke games are fun, sure, but such an incomplete -and actually stupid, going beyond the randomness- game, is not.

It's your turn. C'mon, say sumthin'!

[daz]

Mobile games are extremely depressing right now, I really hope the market changes, but I imagine that won't happen for another 5-10 years.

On desktop, I play most of my games. I'm a pretty casual player and enjoy mostly AAA titles if I'm honest. Currently playing a lot of Diablo 3 and Dark Souls 2, and I plan to get back into Battlefield 4 later this summer.

In terms of the industry, I'm only worried for what the future of Desktop holds, seeing as it seems to be turning into free to play. It might get hard to sell indie games on desktop in the near future which is troubling.

[Darkstar2]

I mean there's pretty much nothing to talk about around here,

There's lots to talk about, but some people moved on or too busy with their jobs and what not

most of the time. Even if it's because you don't have much spare time, why don't we try to light some little fire? That's like the point of having a forum, isn't it; discuss stuff and keep the site active.

Agreed.

So, are you actually interested in the videogame industry, besides the making of 'em?

I love videogames.  I have a collection of them that I bought over the years.  I pretty much lack time now as others here, I have shit that I purchased ages ago whos boxes are gathering dust and spider webs untouched lol (so to speak of course).   I used to play adventure games, myst type, etc.  Simulation I used to like those, I'm sure I must have done all my military flight and commercial / aviation flight training on a flight sim lol, crazy hours.

I used to play some sports sim like NHL, NBA, etc, but never had much patience for that !  Not much really into RPG and strategy I would go crazy

I am for the most part to some extent adventure, action and first person shooters (FPS).

year[/i]. Greatest FPS ever. Also, besides friends, I used to have a gf to play with as well;

lol yeah once you start with those it kills time so quickly and before you know it you look at the watch and you notice you've been playing it 14 hours straight.  I barely have time to take a piss, I haven't touched a video game in ages........something I want to get back into both the playing and creating.

not just unknown people from the internet, so it just added to my enjoyment in that game. I'm no longer playing it but I still like it a lot.

One thing that made me irate over the years with online play is the lot of cheaters.  So much blokes online who cheated, it sucked when you were playing on good servers and you'd get people enter out of nowhere and ruin a good game by flooding their aimbots and other shit pissed me off!!!

I'm into PC games, don't use consoles at all.

The only genres I don't like are Simulation (excepting several titles like most of Tycoon games) and Sports. They're absolutely obnoxious to me.

I can't stand those.  The sports sim are only fun when you play with against people you know, (NHL, FIFA, etc.).

Goat Simulator is a real bad game.

LMAO!

I prefer playing lemonade stand all day !

Oh and Hairy Goat Simulator (its sequel) is equally boring.

[Benxamix2]

Mobile games are extremely depressing right now, I really hope the market changes, but I imagine that won't happen for another 5-10 years.

On desktop, I play most of my games. I'm a pretty casual player and enjoy mostly AAA titles if I'm honest. Currently playing a lot of Diablo 3 and Dark Souls 2, and I plan to get back into Battlefield 4 later this summer.

In terms of the industry, I'm only worried for what the future of Desktop holds, seeing as it seems to be turning into free to play. It might get hard to sell indie games on desktop in the near future which is troubling.

Is Dark Souls 2 on PC just as bad ported as the original? I only tried the first and haven't got information myself on this sequel (besides knowing most of the concept 'cause a friend of mine ended the 2 games, and now that a "Hard Mode" DLC was released, he's playing it again).

btw I still can't understand why is DS considered "casual" at all ._.
The few examples of people giving reasons like here is just retarded argumentation.


And I'm both agreeing and disagreeing about the market. It all depends on how indies reach their clients. From what I know, non-corporative games never got good sales. That has changed quite a bit since Steam came up, but it's still not even close to reach the AAA competition. So, I guess it would just be turning out like how it all began for independant gamemakers... Little market audience, but probably the nicest you can find: people who do care about games in their essence.

[daz]

Is Dark Souls 2 on PC just as bad ported as the original? I only tried the first and haven't got information myself on this sequel (besides knowing most of the concept 'cause a friend of mine ended the 2 games, and now that a "Hard Mode" DLC was released, he's playing it again).

btw I still can't understand why is DS considered "casual" at all ._.

The Dark Souls 2 PC port is fantastic, but I'm used to playing it with a controller because I played the first that way. The first one even with the mods was impossible for me to play with keyboard/mouse, but it was possible to unlock the resolution and add some other graphical features at least.

And yeah, this one really isn't much of a casual game, but I'm not serious into it like my brother, who min-maxes his characters and can PVP for hours straight and never get bored. In fact the first time he saw my stats he laughed for a few minutes straight. Let's just say DUAL WIELDING ZWIEHANDERS BABY.

[Benxamix2]

I'm near to finish the original Ultimate DOOM. It's been quite hard, but absolutely fun!!!
However, I don't want to imagine how are DOOM II, Master Levels, and Final DOOM gonna be like...
(I have the whole DOOM collection in Steam, running under Chocolate DOOM because DOSBox works with lots of flaws)

Have you finished any DOS game? I'm looking forward to LOOM as well (not DOOM related, it's more like a graphic novel).
And, maybe... The DOS version of Prince of Persia. God, that's one hell of a difficult game. It was hard already to play the SNES one, which allows to complete the game within 2 hours instead of 1.

[Benxamix2]

Retrovertigo strikes back!

It's okay to like, love and praise your old generation games, but being so narrow-minded is pointless. Modern games can be (and are) good, too.
I could provide several LOADS of examples of shitty 90's games if you wish me to, then compare it to the amount of shitty games from today's era, and no big difference would be seen.


This is the example I keep remembering from day to day as a "great modern game". Most people who have told me it to be a bad game are stuck in the past about everything.

[TheExDeus]

I personally also think that modern games are too casual. With casual I mean that they target the lowest denominator. And in most cases those are 12 year olds. So they end up VERY easy (in a modern game playing on Normal/Hard I rarely fail more than once in the whole game). I remember playing everything from Doom and Quake to Starcraft and Diablo for weeks until I actually finished them. Today I finish single-player games in max 2 play sessions (so basically two days). The only games I play longer are RPG's like Skyrim or Fallout which sometimes turn into hundreds of hours (because I want to do EVERYTHING). But they are also very easy and when you play for about 16 hours you are basically unkillable. The only thing that can kill you is if you fall of a cliff in skyrim or if you blow yourself up with a nuke in Fallout.
There are also very few reasons to ever replay a game these days. While there was little reason to do so in the 90s as well, I still found myself playing a lot of the same games back then. I haven't really replayed a game in 4-5 years now. I plan to replay DeusEx:HE though.
Dev's often boast about "replayability" and yet there is basically no reason to do so. More stuff != replayability. Look at original Diablo3. If you finished it, then you basically didn't start it up again ever. And it has tons of stuff in it. You are just not interested in that. I hear it's slightly better in the expansion. On the other hand FTL:Faster Than Light - which has relatively few things in it, can make you play it 100 times over. Mostly because when you die you die. No checkpoints, no saves.
What I hate most about today's games though is regenerative healing. That thing took every challenge out of games. Stepped on a mine in Half-Life1 and don't have enough health left for a boss? Better reload. Stepped on a mine in Battlefield4? Stay put for 5 seconds and you will be alright.

I also remember point-and-click games (we called them "quest games") like Spacequest, Kindquest, Leisure Suite Larry etc. Those were fun. They actually required you to use your brains instead of clicking randomly. And they had a twisted sense of humor that is not really matched these days. Like in Spacequest where you could pick up an "unstable explosives" which basically blows you up at random time in the game and is totally useless as an item. Which meant that if you picked that item up in the first 5 minutes of the game, then you have to restart after playing hours. And I liked that in games - you could shoot yourself in the foot in the first 5 minutes and never know about it until hours later. It made you pay more attention to the game and in a sense "respect" it more. The same was in strategies as well. Even newer ones like Homeworld, where you had the instinct to build as many guys as possible, but you couldn't actually ever win by doing that. If you didn't attack in the first 10 minutes then you actually were already lost - you just didn't know that until 1 hour in the mission.

Another problem with today's games is consoles. Just like I said in the first line - Companies target the lowest denominator. That means consoles usually get the main games and consoles are often played by more children than PC. Even if not children, then VERY casual gamers indeed. That leads to problems I already mentioned before, but they also create new ones for PC games. Like ports are often crap (hint: Deus Ex 2) or they are dumb'd down. An example I would point out is Portal2. I was VERY disappointed in that game, because it had such great potential and yet it was so remarkably easy just because of consoles. Valve added several things to "simplify" the game and yet it was more offensive to people who actually think or can play than more helpful to those who need that simplification. I list some here:
1) Decals on walls. I hated when you could put portals only in VERY specific places and you could see those places a mile away. That meant there was very little figuring to do and just put portals there. But I get that it was usually needed for gameplay reasons (so players wouldn't have the possibility to "cheat"). But I hated the alternative even more - when I played the game I was so offended that they actually put decals on walls always pointing to where you need to have a portal. Like imagine a gray wall that has like a 2mx2m tiles where you could put portals. And in this tiled wall there is a one tile 1mx2m SPECIFICALLY were you have to put the portal. So they basically show you where to put the portal even if you could theoretically put it everywhere. So they took any required thinking out of it. And the reason I am saying that this is more offensive than helpful, is because people who actually need this hint, they don't see it. Like I have seen several Let's play's of Portal2. In all cases American players (don't want to be offensive, but I have noticed this is especially a problem for American players) don't actually notice those decals. They put portals everywhere and get frustrated and when they "figure it out" (guess) they are happy and feel accomplished. Yet if they just looked at the god damn wall they would have saved 10 minutes.
2) Every level had maximum of two gameplay elements. I remember watching Portal2 trailers showing a paint puzzle together with turrets, jumppads, anti-gravity beams and a timing puzzle with crushers at the same time. Yet in the final game every level was very underwhelming and took no effort to figure out. The longest I was stuck in a level in portal2 was about 15minutes when I played with a friend in Co-op and we were drunk in the middle of the night. So basically the game was "difficult" only when you are tired and drunk. And even then we figured it out sooner than many Lets players.
3) That freaking ball following to portals. I don't even think many people noticed this (which is part of the problem I guess), but the explosive balls near the end of the game FOLLOWED the portals. If you put a portal on the ground and trow the ball it will "magically" try hit the portal even if you thrown it imprecisely. I hated that so much. I am 100% sure that was for console gamers as it is a lot harder to aim precisely with a controller. But because of this they ruined any challenge in PC as well.

And there were more points as well. But long story short - the game sucked balls because of that. Story was okay, gameplay had potential, but the in the end I would have put it a 6/10 at best. I haven't played user made levels though. As valve released that cool level editor I believe someone has made levels worth playing.

I think there are three main reasons why games in the 80s and 90s were hard:
1) Games couldn't be long or complex back then because of hardware reasons. So they made them tough. They made them so tough most people didn't finish most of them.
2) PC demographics was mostly 20-40 year olds. Not many kids played games, so they didn't have to make it easy.
3) Everyone had a keyboard and mouse. So no auto-aim, no balls following portals and no button mashing.

[Darkstar2]

I personally also think that modern games are too casual. With casual I mean that they target the lowest denominator. And in most cases those are 12 year olds. So they end up VERY easy (in a modern game playing on Normal/Hard I rarely fail more than once in the whole game). I remember playing everything from Doom and Quake to Starcraft and Diablo for weeks until I actually finished them. Today I finish single-player games in max 2 play sessions (so basically two days). The only games I play longer are RPG's like Skyrim or Fallout which sometimes turn into hundreds of hours (because I want to do EVERYTHING). But they are also very easy and when you play for about 16 hours you are basically

Wow that is probably the longest post I read from someone other than myself lol, congrats mate, but you ain't beating no record    Anyhow, yes I can see his point in a way he is right, there were also utterly shitty games back then too.  Point I was making is that many games now seem to focus more on graphics/eye candy than playability/replayability, story, etc.  Some games seem rushed too and extremely buggy.

There are also very few reasons to ever replay a game these days. While there was little reason to do so in the 90s as well, I still found myself playing a lot of the same

Also you see some games that start well and end in disasters.   One good example of shitty gaming is the original Duke Nukem 3D series in DOS.....First time you play it first level it's amazing, but as you progress through you notice the shitty level design.  One thing that stands out is adventure games. There were some pretty good adventure games made back in the days, those you could play through for 50-70 hours through.... Right now it seems to be 3D FPS craze, 5 hour gameplay lol.

Duke Nukem Forever took what  decades to make, I was so fucking bloody disappointed what a waste of the cardboard it comes wrapped in and plastic it's burned on not to mention over price shite.  Modern graphics is not enough in a game, there has to be balance.....

I plan to replay DeusEx:HE though.

That part was obvious !

Dev's often boast about "replayability" and yet there is basically no reason to do so. More stuff != replayability. Look at original

If the game has a good story, proper level design, that can pave the way to replaying it.  However, if a game is linear all the way, might not be a reason for some to replay it.  Good story, good gameplay, multiple paths, multiple endings, some random elements, at least some non linear elements, might contribute to replaying it.  Perhaps what most devs now are targeting is not the single player market, but the multi player market craze   As once you finish the easy peasy single player campaign most of the time there is no reason to go back to it, you tackle the multi player and start pwning or getting pwned if you suck or if you are playing with cheaters

expansion. On the other hand FTL:Faster Than Light - which has relatively few things in it, can make you play it 100 times over. Mostly because when you die you die. No checkpoints, no saves.

Wow I would hate that, I guess there is a market for every kind. It would be more frustrating than ever if you died in a game you have progressed so far only to start from the beginning.  I don't think most people would like that and would end up eventually either putting holes through walls or going crazy or both

What I hate most about today's games though is regenerative healing. That thing took every challenge out of games. Stepped on a mine in Half-Life1 and don't have enough health left for a boss? Better reload. Stepped on a mine in Battlefield4? Stay put for 5 seconds and you will be alright.

I don't think you realise that these games are not simulations but arcade style.  Why ? because that's what people want.  If it was based off a simulation model, majority of people would end up dying most of the time and crying that the game is too difficult !
If anything those games should offer an arcade mode and simulation mode, some do, most don't.  It's pathetic indeed. In some FPS where you receive grenades and don't die or you have to get shot 500 times to really die !

I also remember point-and-click games (we called them "quest games") like Spacequest, Kindquest, Leisure Suite Larry etc.

I used to love those, and I plan on making P&C in ENIGMA, just looking for some people willing to draw the art, help ,etc.
Leisure Suit Larry lol ! Who can forget that one......Don,t forget monkey island, and the other classics.

totally useless as an item. Which meant that if you picked that item up in the first 5 minutes of the game, then you have to restart after playing hours.

I'd be cussing every known possible combination if that happened to me and used the disc as a Frisbee

And I liked that in games - you could shoot yourself in the foot in the first 5 minutes and never know about it until hours later. It

You have patience of steel - you sure you are human ?   Maybe there was a market for that, but now, I would think people would be frustrated, especially now that people are playing games much younger.....

God forbid if you ever have kids and let them play these type of games ! LOL.  I can grantee that this type of game model would not suit many people !

Here let me illustrate my point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOzF5ec6B_k

lol!

I think there are three main reasons why games in the 80s and 90s were hard:
1) Games couldn't be long or complex back then because of hardware reasons. So they made them tough.

The length of a game might not be always related to hardware.  Remember that the big ridiculous size in today's games is due to the mega texture resolutions used.  Some new games require multi gigabytes, and you start seeing more 15gb, 20gb, even 40gb.
Right now you end up with huge fucking games that require multi gigabyte installs and can be finished in hours on hard.  There is more focus on graphics than anything else.

[TheExDeus]

As once you finish the easy peasy single player campaign most of the time there is no reason to go back to it, you tackle the multi player and start pwning or getting pwned if you suck or if you are playing with cheaters

Problem with multiplayer is that it is hard to get right as well.

I don't think most people would like that and would end up eventually either putting holes through walls or going crazy or both

You think that now, but in the 90s people loved that. They didn't get frustrated, they got pumped. The harder it is to achieve something, the bigger the achievement. People would play 3h straight in one level and when they finally beaten it, then would call everyone they know and brag about it. Or when a kid finally beaten a game he would run happily in the room and joyfully tell his mother that he beaten it.  I am 23 and I want a game that is so hard to beat that when I actually did it, I would call my freaking mother and tell her that.

I don't think you realise that these games are not simulations but arcade style.  Why ? because that's what people want.

I wouldn't call Half-life1 realistic. Eating a freaking slice of pizza or drinking soda to heal gunshot wounds is hardly realistic. But they are more challenging. And people don't know what they want.

I don't think you realise that these games are not simulations but arcade style.  Why ? because that's what people want.

True, monkey island was also awesome.

Maybe there was a market for that, but now, I would think people would be frustrated, especially now that people are playing games much younger.....

I am born in 1990. I had my first PC when I was 4 years old. I was playing Diablo, Doom, Quake, C&C, quests and other games when I was less than 8 years old. Clearly it wasn't that frustrating for me. It's just that the younger players are so degraded that they want to get an achievement by picking up the first weapon.

I can grantee that this type of game model would not suit many people !

It DID suit a lot of people. Nobody complained that Mario or Pacman was hard. People just played them days after days. If you played any challenging game in the 90's you would know that feeling. And it wasn't frustration (maybe just a little).

The length of a game might not be always related to hardware.

Then it usually was. You couldn't pack many different graphics, sounds or story in a game. That meant you had to use the 10 levels provided and that's it.

I also remembered what I hate is "Achievements". Don't get me wrong, I love getting them and I love doing something special to get them. But I that they are given by just playing the game normally. Picking up a weapon shouldn't be an achievement, killing a boss shouldn't be an achievement, finishing the game shouldn't be an achievement. Killing the boss with a knife having less than 20hp should be an achievement. Finishing the game without dying (i.e. no save points) should be an achievement. The definition of achievement is this: "Something accomplished successfully, especially by means of exertion, skill, practice, or perseverance.". And getting 75% of achievements in today's games don't require any "exertion, skill, practice, or perseverance".

But this "I am special for doing jack shit" feeling kids these days want to get also exemplified in the Mass Effect 3 ending kerfuffle. I was probably one of the very few who enjoyed it. I found the arguments quite lacking, because they either wanted "more" or they wanted to be "special". Like in short:
1) "This ending sucks! What happened to race X on planet Y?" - These people don't get that the Mass Effect series wasn't about the universe, it was about Shepard. It wasn't about what happens to race X, it's about what happens to Shepard. Everything you experienced was trough him/her, so of course the ending will also be about him/her. Besides, the trilogy ended, not the universe. So there probably will be more story about the rest. So they were just sad that the games ended and not how they ended.
2) "This ending sucks! It's just 'choose red or blue' and all my actions don't mean shit!" - These people have the god complex games often create. Logically thinking - does saving a character x in Mass Effect 1 should really impact the end? Does saving a doctor in one part of the game should stop reapers from coming? Should not stealing credits from a mob boss should help you in the final fight? People must understand that Mass Effect was remarkably realistic in this regard. 99% of decisions you make in life doesn't change anything. If you eat chicken today, it will not impact your job experience 20 years from now. Most things don't matter - and in Mass Effect that was exemplified. Almost 95% of the 3 games was about how you try to uncover history while aliens are coming. How could anything you do really stop them? When they came you stopped them then. So the previous 95% was story, but without real impact. Bioshock:Infinite made the whole plot around that. The fact that vast majority of choices doesn't matter - "Constant and variables". And even then people complained how Infinite had only one ending - missing the whole point entirely. Just like in Big Bang Theory episode they pointed out how in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade the Indiana Jones was totally pointless and irrelevant to the plot. Nazis wanted the Ark in the beginning and they got it in the end. Indiana didn't stop them or impact the story in any way. If Indiana wasn't in the movie, then the plot would essentially be the same. But movies, games or books aren't about the ending. They are about the journey. About what is in the middle. And experiencing that with Indiana was just as fun as experiencing that with Shepard. It doesn't matter that in the end they were irrelevant.

[Goombert]

I agree with everything Harri said above, video games do cater to the lowest denominator, and it's bullshit, this is part of why PC gaming is dying. Dumbing down SimCity with SimCity: Societies and SimCity 2013 and sandboxing shit, is exactly how they pissed off their fan base and ruined the franchise.

You don't see many new strategy games anymore these days either. It's all bullshit, the PC gaming platform is in decline. iOS/iPhone/Mobile/Android have not only changed the landscape of the video game industry, they are fucking destroying it with their crappy bird games.

[Darkstar2]

Problem with multiplayer is that it is hard to get right as well.

So true, but then again there is the psychological factor of people playing against other live human beings and feeling right up there and powerful as they go on a frag frenzy

You think that now, but in the 90s people loved that. They didn't get frustrated, they got pumped. The harder it is to achieve something, the bigger the achievement.

Well times have changed mate ! I have to be quite honest if today I played a game and at 95% through I died and had to start all over, all because of 1 mistake I did 5 minutes into the game I'd be fucking irate about it, and I would not have kind words to say lol, and the cardboard box and DVD would end up in the recycling bin, smashed to smithereens ! 

People would play 3h straight in one level and when they finally beaten it, then would call everyone they know and brag about it.

Indeed.  So I will keep this in mind for my next few games I make, I'll make one just for you, no waypoints, no saves, etc.  There again this discussion gives me good ideas, I'd make things optional and configurable.
But I guess this goes to show the different extremes in tastes.  Some people have all the time to spend playing games, some don't.....

Or when a kid finally beaten a game he would run happily in the room and joyfully tell his mother that he beaten it.

Yeah ! People were so much happy to brag they finished a game and be happy as if they discovered gold.  Now you have social media and smart phones where people report what they are doing, when they are farting or taking a dump !

I am 23 and I want a game that is so hard to beat that when I actually did it, I would call my freaking mother and tell her that.

REALLY ?  Ok, I'll make a platform / puzzle type game dedicated just for players who want that sort of thing.... 

I wouldn't call Half-life1 realistic. Eating a freaking slice of pizza or drinking soda to heal gunshot wounds is hardly realistic.

lol.  That's exactly my point !  It's not a simulation.  It's sci-fi based off an arcade model.  Same for call of duty, BF4 and the rest of these types of games, they are by all means not simulations  they are arcade.
If these games were based off realistic models, people would probably not play them but only a single digit percentage who like them.

That's like FPS games where you go on a shooting frenzy because you know there is ammo practically all over the map that spawns back.... In a real simulation you would have very limited ammo and really have to think your shots / not waste them.  In an arcade model you would just empty your guns and shoot at anything moving no worries as you can pick up ammo so conveniently placed and in plain view you can't miss

True, monkey island was also awesome.

Though I was a bit disappointed of the ending in one of them think it was 4.  Some games I liked to play but towards the end noticed they seem rushed and ending was disappointing.

Speaking of adventure games, ones I really enjoyed playing, Syberia 1, Syberia 2, (there is a 3rd one in the making). 
Don't forget Under A Killing Moon, Temujin, Phantasmagoria, Pandora, 7th guest, 11th guest, etc.etc.etc.

I am born in 1990. I had my first PC when I was 4 years old. I was playing Diablo, Doom, Quake, C&C, quests and other games when I was less than 8 years old. Clearly it wasn't that frustrating for me. It's just that the younger players are so degraded that they want to get an achievement by picking up the first weapon.

Quake yeah I remember my PC was not up to par and lagged like shit on 640x480, I had to play Quake on 320x200 lol!  How times change.......320x240x256 colours, and now game playat 1920x1080 !

It DID suit a lot of people. Nobody complained that Mario or Pacman was hard.

Are you kidding me ? Mario is easy ! also wen you died you didn't start the game all over, except if you lost all lives.  However in Mario there was a secret area with pipes where you could warp to selected levels.

Then it usually was. You couldn't pack many different graphics, sounds or story in a game. That meant you had to use the 10 levels provided and that's it.

Nothing prevented a dev from using lots of graphics, sounds, resources, etc.  Under a killing moon came on 4 CDs packed  Monkey Island was multi CD, some other games were multi CD.

Don't forget the Commodore 64, many of the bigger titles came on multi disks.

I also remembered what I hate is "Achievements". Don't get me wrong, I love getting them and I love doing something special to get them.

Ok so what you hate is actually the type of achievements.  Yes how ridiculous some achievements are.  picking weapons ? lol  really Might as well make "walking" an achievement,

But I that they are given by just playing the game normally. Picking up a weapon shouldn't be an achievement, killing a boss shouldn't be an achievement, finishing the game shouldn't be an achievement.

Mind you finishing the game  could be one, for example, finishing the game in high difficulty mode.

Killing the boss with a knife having less than 20hp should be an achievement.

yeah and some really sore hands

Finishing the game without dying (i.e. no save points) should be an achievement. The definition of achievement is this: "Something accomplished successfully, especially by means of exertion, skill, practice, or perseverance.". And getting 75% of achievements in today's games don't require any "exertion, skill, practice, or perseverance".

Good point, so I guess there is the "psychological" factor.  Making the player feel powerful, successful, etc. 

But this "I am special for doing jack shit" feeling kids these days want to get also exemplified in the Mass Effect 3 ending kerfuffle.

There you go, you have it nailed. 
"ZZzzzzzzOMG ZOMG I just got an achivement for picking a weapon lemme go facebook my 500 friends and tweet my 5000 followers ......"  Like I said times changed

impact. Bioshock:Infinite made the whole plot around that. The fact that vast majority of choices doesn't matter - "Constant and variables". And even then people complained how Infinite had only one ending - missing the whole point entirely.

BTW speaking of game endings, I own the MYST collection. They now are gathering dust in their cardboard boxes, so I haven't played them again in ages (no pun intended.)  Anyways, in one of the MYST I recall multiple endings, and in one of the endings you were doomed to an island, I always wondered if there was a secret escape on that island or if you were just stuck wandering there.... I remember wandering hours on using objects and figuring out if there was a secret or something I needed to do..........

[Darkstar2]

I agree with everything Harri said above, video games do cater to the lowest denominator, and it's bullshit, this is part of why PC gaming is dying. Dumbing down SimCity with SimCity: Societies and SimCity 2013 and sandboxing shit, is exactly how they pissed off their fan base and ruined the franchise.

You don't see many new strategy games anymore these days either. It's all bullshit, the PC gaming platform is in decline. iOS/iPhone/Mobile/Android have not only changed the landscape of the video game industry, they are fucking destroying it with their crappy bird games.

I agree about the crappy mobile games,
but I disagree about the PC gaming industry on decline. I'd hate to think of a reason why I should stop spending thousands of $ on system upgrades lol !

Anyhow I don't think it's really mobile market ruining the PC gaming industry but the consoles......nothing worse than a shitty, half baked console port.

But don't worry Robert, now all those GMS homemade birdgames on iOS/Android, etc, will find their way on consoles with GMS's new console ports.  so you will be able to enjoy those flappy bird style games on your PS4, XBOX360, XBOX720 in the very near future.

[Benxamix2]

I'd hate to think of a reason why I should stop spending thousands of $ on system upgrades lol !

Gaming isn't the only reason to purchase expensive computer upgrades, you know.


So, @Deus (or Harri, do you mind me calling you like that?). For the first time in a big, BIG while, someone has made a pretty solid point about why are modern games -mostly- not as good as old ones (yours is mainly about difficulty, but I like how you put it ). Most people tend to simply go around and yell OLDGAMESAREBETTERBECAUSETHEYARENOTALLABOUTGRAPHICS RAWR RAWR RAWR.




But my point was, that there are few games that really stand out in every era. There are good and GREAT games around, but I bet most of them are simply not easily spotted. Steam is not an universal game database, and you know that as well.

AND YET...





By the way, have any of you ever heard of DEMONOPHOBIA? It's a bizarre survival horror made by a japanese indie guy.

Which is the creepiest game you've ever played?
I'd pick this one in terms of explicit stuff, heh.

[Darkstar2]

Gaming isn't the only reason to purchase expensive computer upgrades, you know.

Gee thanks for reminding me.  I'm not a n00b next to hardware and software, just for programming (certain languages). I have spent thousands of $ over the years in computer upgrades, hardware and upgrades because mostly for the work I did, multimedia, rendering, film, etc that required heavy processing back in the days where these tools required heavy CPU processing and did not have the same level of GPU optimisations.   Then came a time where I spent more on GPU upgrades particularly to be able to enjoy the latest games.  In the case of less games or dying PC industry as some claim, which I don't necessarily agree with, I might hold back on upgrades.

As far as your last comment, I don't know exactly who you are aiming with this, but I have not gone "oh older games are better just because they are" I usually back up my arguments in length if you bothered to read my posts.  Not a one liner person.

There is good and bad on both sides.

Some older games sucked major balls too, true.....but that was not the point I was making in terms of modern games vs. older games and TheEx made some very good points.

But this is a to each their own. Some people still like older games and cannot stand any new game, whilst there are people who are into retro games and crave also the blocky look style, and others prefer modern next generation material.

Some people judge a game strictly by its eye candy, others don't care about graphics at all but more about story, some like a balance, some like certain styles of games others don't..... Some people like FPS, some can't stand them.   I've never said that old games did not have any flaws or were ALL good.