The New Golden Age of Games?

[Baker]

I have a hard time with any statement like "The Fricking 'Golden Age' of Games." The problem with such a statement... no matter how good the game, or how it may have defined a time in your life. It's A GAME...

I think games are important. In the same way that books and movies are important.

Life is inherently a very mundane thing. We eat, breathe, sleep and such little different than our ancestors or any of the other living things that populate this planet.

But through imagination we can read more into our existence, find greater purpose and resolve and through that strength create.

/Recently ... like just 5 days ago was re-exposed to Fahrenheit 451 and the "The House of Usher II" by Ray Bradbury and found to be in a situation where I had to explain all the plot elements. Yes, I'm all over the "classics" (like I watched the ... well ... boring movie The Bridge on the River Kwai once to see what that was all about). This particular plot twist started with a very famous Simpsons time traveling toaster episode (which was based on Ray Bradbury short).

[Mindf!3ldzX]

Arcade games at the time had an impact, both positive and negative, on the music industry, revenues for which had declined by $400 million between 1978 and 1981 (from $4.1 billion to $3.7 billion), a decrease that was directly credited to the rise of arcade games at the time.

Boooooya !!! Fuck you Music Industry !!!

[Grim Warlock]

His first post had nothing aimed in your direction, he was speaking generally.

How could you be sure?

Look how your response is directed at him:

"I don't know what you're whining about"

"so do some research buddy"

These are just standoffish comments because you're unhappy with him disagreeing with the video you posted. There is absolutely zero reason there for you to communicate that way with him, and I'm going to continue setting a standard here for all people to speak to each other in a certain manner, and not instigate.

Also, I deleted the other comments in the other thread after you made note of it, I missed those.

Because of what he said in the first post, anyway that isn't the worst that anyone's done on this forum. I read his post and found it insulting of what he said, and I don't recall what you mean by other thread.

[Korax]

hmm... loads of text.
Its actually the first time in years that I contribute to a non-development thread.
As a developer, if I'm off with what you guys are talking about here, apologies.

Personally I think "the golden age of gaming" has passed already, probably around 2004 at the latest. And recent DRM titles (like every second one, if not more) doesn't sweeten it for me. I for one will not work for most of the current gamedev companies out there. Theres no way to really differentiate a normal IT company from a gamedev company once you remove the marketing and hype. The only difference is the one uses SQL primarily, the other DirectX/OpenGL. Both treat their clients as numbers & cash cows.

To most publishers... they will brand me a pirate (maybe?) because I'm part of their piracy statistics they tout around. I'm part of the stats because I don't buy DRM games. So I guess these corporates think if I didn't buy their game, I must have pirated it, because according to their analogy if I have a PC and didn't pay for a game, I must have pirated it... the fact that I don't own it, didn't pirate it and didn't buy it, doesn't form part of the formula.

Thats is corporates, and thats why I don't buy games... if I buy 3 games a year its already too much.

Personally I think games should go back to the 90's. For me its has the same effect as tv shows and movies from the 80's. I had more fun playing Quake1 and the idTech1-based games (like Doom1) than most of the crap the followed it since then. If I ever successfully produce a game, its going to follow that level of detail and fun factor. I don't care about visual effects and polycount. With today's tech is very possible to create such games.

I think the real golden age of games are currently in the making as more and more gamers turn their backs on corporate companies with all their DRM they are pushing down our throats and making false statements like "the PC platform is dead". They say such things because they think their zombie army of gamers (read: cash cows) will go out and buy consoles, where piracy isn't as allegedly prevalent. What if console games becomes too pirated, what will the next jingle sound like?? I'm sure they understand the concept that the most prevalent device or software will be the most "under siege". Its true for Microsoft Windows, its its very likely true for the PC platform too at the moment.

The real secret is to stop thinking corporate and have hunderds of people working on a title. Make simpler games, with a smaller team and other overheads. Its super easy these days to get a game out and get sales with a connected world than in the 90's. So how did developers get it done back then?

Independant developers will start emerging again, smaller teams, smaller overhead, no DRM and a cult following. At the moment I'm looking at using the idTech4 engine to build exactly such a game. Modern tech, yet simple game mechanics that will give you the feeling of playing a modern version of Doom1. Its about the fun factor, not the interactive movie experience.

Like John Carmack said back in the day:
"Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important."

[Baker]

Personally I think "the golden age of gaming" has passed already, probably around 2004 at the latest.

This is possibly true and possibly not true. And I mean this in the context of history. "Gaming" is relatively new thing going through stages and changes and life cycles.

I at least 3 or 4 very fundamental problems going on right now. But games are not quite so complex as many think: there are the game rules and how it is dressed up. (Hence my comment Modern Warfare 3 is largely just a better looking Counter-Strike).

What I see as the "real problem" is that most visions of gaming come from corporations who view it as a one-way street of them providing a sandbox and the "market" living in it.

What good is imagination if it is a one-way street? Forums are interactive, blogs interactive, etc. But companies deliver a static final product?

[Reas as: unmoddable. No ability to create or modify the experiences and such.]

And recent DRM titles (like every second one, if not more) doesn't sweeten it for me. I for one will not work for most of the current gamedev companies out there. Theres no way to really differentiate a normal IT company from a gamedev company once you remove the marketing and hype. The only difference is the one uses SQL primarily, the other DirectX/OpenGL. Both treat their clients as numbers & cash cows.

Possibly unavoidable in an economy of scale, but at the same time the "customer as enemy" part of the above model tends to eventually fail.

[Rampage]

COD is not a more advanced counterstrike, I played CS competitively for years with some pretty good teams, and I can tell you it's on a whole different level of strategy, intuitiveness, and gun fights.

Shooting someone with a headshot using a desert eagle across the map is probably one of the most fun experiences, or putting together a 5 man streak in a big clan match; I've won some 3on1s and 4on1s in huge intense moments to take my team to overtime and they went nuts on ventrilo; those moments are irreplaceable when it comes to my gaming history. I just never got any enjoyment out of COD to be honest, it feels far too quick to reward, and the little kids ruin the game.

Not to mention those kill streak perks are just so stupid and unrealistic when it comes to COD, let alone the extremely quick pace of the game, you die in two seconds, respawn, die, then kill someone, kill, die again, it just comes and goes so fast, and it just doesn't feel very skilled (especially MW3). Yeah, I've seen some great mw3 players, but they never stood out to me as much as a guy who dominates in a CS scrimmage. One of my best friends played on the best team in Canada, going to CPL, and international tournaments, I watched him play first hand and it's like art in a video game. COD just has a quick reward system for little kids who like to run around shoot kill at an insanely fast pace, the level of realism is about as low as it gets. Plus, sniping is not even necessary. The maps are far too small to snipe, and the sniper rifle has an extremely slow recoil and bobbles around, so the chances of hitting such fast moving targets (considering how fast the models move compared to counter strike) are really slim.

I used to watch top teams match in the biggest tournaments, and the intensity and excitement along with the strategies - map design of CS is second to none. It's possibly the most underrated FPS game of all time in my opinion (source sucks though).

I also have a problem with the general map design in COD. The maps seem to lack purpose, and appear to be quickly put together. Activision has been milking money from that game for years now, the head developer said they've been using the same engine as the original COD. That's just not going to cut it when you compare it to a game like Battlefield 3.

[QuakeRoot]

I've nothing further to say to Grim Warlock, he's shown who he is by his reactions; and that's good enough for me. I said what I said, I meant it, I may have been blunt about it... I'm not taking it back.

I think games are important. In the same way that books and movies are important.

Life is inherently a very mundane thing. We eat, breathe, sleep and such little different than our ancestors or any of the other living things that populate this planet.

I agree with you Baker, games are very important. Stories, Entertainment, Good Company, Good Food, it all makes life worth living! But these things are the seasoning of life; too much seasoning... (or ONLY seasoning) makes a very poor meal...

From what I've seen of you, you appear to have life in hand and approach life balanced, maturely. It's encouraging to see.

[Baker]

COD is not a more advanced counterstrike, I played CS competitively for years with some pretty good teams, and I can tell you it's on a whole different level of strategy, intuitiveness, and gun fights.

I was referring to the graphics from the perspective of a generic gamer who makes up his mind based on what TV commercials they show him.

I wasn't equating gameplay quality.

[Rampage]

It was a misread on my part, I digress

[Grim Warlock]

I've nothing further to say to Grim Warlock, he's shown who he is by his reactions; and that's good enough for me. I said what I said, I meant it, I may have been blunt about it... I'm not taking it back.

I made a reply to you earlier but it was deleted, exactly what I expected. You proved my point and then the moderators deleted the reply I made so I couldn't win the argument. In your first post you blatantly insulted me by saying I'm a no-lifer who only has games and is going to become deluded, stupid and that I'm a bad example and fucking retarded.

[Baker]

In your first post you blatantly insulted me by saying I'm a no-lifer who only has games and is going to become deluded, stupid and that I'm a bad example and fucking retarded.

I don't see where QuakeRoot said that, here is his post:

I have a hard time with any statement like "The Fricking 'Golden Age' of Games." The problem with such a statement... no matter how good the game, or how it may have defined a time in your life. It's A GAME...

Adults need games every now and then, but when games become your way of life... Adults become: deluded, stupid, bad examples, & fucking retards.

Golden Age of Games? Games (Entertainment) are a part of balance, they're not a way of life.

QuakeRoot was replying to your video. Not you. Your first post is just a video so I don't believe he was replying to you personally.

At least as far as I can tell.

Is my assumption correct?

[Rampage]

Baker I already pointed this out, and he's intent on proving otherwise.

[QuakeRoot]

I'll just state for the record, for all those who feel their spoon is too big...

That I...
Am A Banana.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s--hg43ybY&feature=related]My Spoon Is Too Big - YouTube[/ame]

[Rampage]

I made a reply to you earlier but it was deleted, exactly what I expected. You proved my point and then the moderators deleted the reply I made so I couldn't win the argument. In your first post you blatantly insulted me by saying I'm a no-lifer who only has games and is going to become deluded, stupid and that I'm a bad example and fucking retarded.

I don't think you get it.

There is no 'winning arguments' here. This isn't youtube, no one is tracking your silly battles and saying 'OH SHIT, HE GOT HIM'! I was getting far too tired of long posts where you break apart every sentence of a fellow poster by using sarcastic one word answers.

And I would also stop using the pitty card, I've equally deleted posts of other users as much as I have yours because they got dragged into the same stupidity of those arguments.

We intend to not let the topics at hand get derailed, and I stick by this. Again, all I'm asking you is to talk about the topics, and to stop attacking the poster, not the actual post. It's not that complicated, but you insist on being a dick to people even after I told you a few times in combined threads.

[Bloodshot]

I actually quite agree with Korax. You know something that pisses me off? I've seen a lot of devs mention something along the lines of "you can't make games like they used to because modern games require a lot more detail, it doesn't work with the story, etc."

Which is definitely a load of bull because there has been pretty good level design from some modern AAA devs and custom content from regular people. As for story, I'm all for a good story but I really don't care about it when it comes to the gameplay. When devs are sacrificing things that would be fun to make a game's story "make sense" is when something is wrong with the industry.

I've seen things like alphas of games that have cool weapons and stuff that was cut and they say "it didn't make logical sense why it was there". < I don't care, if it's fun, they should make it work, not take it out.