my 2 or 3 cents:
well I think games back then were made to be fun. Sure the graphics sucked, but even text-based games (zzt, the kroz series, angband/nethack, etc etc) were fun fun fun because that''s how they were designed. They were just games! Nowadays, I look at the games being advertised and they seem to be more like movies than anything else. They blow you away visually and aurally, but that''s about it. They''re too epic, you know? You can''t sit down 5 minutes before school or work and play a quick game these days.
Another problem: game companies these days simply refuse to be innovative. The desingers have no imagination. Hey, this movie made lots of money, and so will the game-- let''s make it! or, hey, blizzard is making this game, so let''s copy it!
Another problem: games these days are almost exclusively multiplayer. This is in part due to the above problem. Where are all the good single player games? Recently, there have been none, and that is VERY sad. Last great single player game I played was System Shock 2 (which was simply amazing), or perhaps the Sims. Now that bioware got canned (which blows because there goes fallout 3), what now for the solo players among us?
The state of games these days really makes me sad. That''s why I hang around boards like these, try games that you guys make, and make games of my own. They''re usually very enjoyable, and at the very least, creative.
I miss the old DOS style
if the graphics don''t matter, heres a fun solid arcade game that I made:
www.ezequal.com/OrigamiMan64/Defender4.zip
www.ezequal.com/OrigamiMan64/Defender4.zip
It''s a terrible thing to grow old, exepotes. I''m just 23, but I had an intellivision, and I spent about two hours every day learning how to rock everything in Triple Action. I still sucked at the driving one, but I was unstoppable in a tank or plane.
I think it''s true that youth makes games better. A buddy of mine from home, 18 years old, played GTA III for hours and hours on end, and then he just kind of stopped when he graduated from high school. A new game still entertains him for a week or so, but his college, his job, and his other pastimes overshadow it. He''s more interested in taking the PS2 apart than in playing it lately, and I suppose that''s a fine thing. I always love to dismantle a piece of electronic technology.
I think it''s true that youth makes games better. A buddy of mine from home, 18 years old, played GTA III for hours and hours on end, and then he just kind of stopped when he graduated from high school. A new game still entertains him for a week or so, but his college, his job, and his other pastimes overshadow it. He''s more interested in taking the PS2 apart than in playing it lately, and I suppose that''s a fine thing. I always love to dismantle a piece of electronic technology.
I loved the old 8 bit games. I have to admit that after playing one recently that I used to love, I found that the game's simplistic system was not what I remembered and I found it rather boring. So is it the "feeling" it gave when it was new that I miss? More than likely. As these games evolve, we evolve with them. Back when I played Zork when it was new, I was fascinated with it. Now it was very hard to keep my attention on it. So as much as I "miss" the way it used to be, I have to admit, I love where we are now with technology. Just think, in about 10 years there will be another post like this saying, "Man, I miss the old games like Morrowind!"
"If you are not willing to try, you will never succeed! If you never succeed, are you really trying?"
Grellin
~Global Developers Union~
[edited by - Grellin GDU on January 11, 2004 2:12:06 PM]
"If you are not willing to try, you will never succeed! If you never succeed, are you really trying?"
Grellin
~Global Developers Union~
[edited by - Grellin GDU on January 11, 2004 2:12:06 PM]
"If you are not willing to try, you will never succeed!"GrellinC++ Game Programming
I''ve heard a lot of commments of people saying that youth made some of those old dos games better. While, I agree that there is some truth to that... I still have to disagree with that blanket statement.
I have played games since the early eighties, when I could barely read & write. Starting out with the commodore 64, then moving to IBM compatiable PCs in the mid eighties. I also played consoles and have seen their evolution from Atari, to NES & gameboy, to Sega, SNES, to Playstation, to PS2, to the XBox. Though, for reasons I mentioned in previous post, I have always enjoyed PC games more.
I am not saying that all games today are bad... But I am saying that a lot are made just to make a profit, with no intent of making a good product (maybe a crash-less product, for the most part). I worked in the PS2 Game QA field for a while, and got tired of it because of that. Now, it was not that all the games they made that were bad, but many of them were obvisouly not made with the intention of being fun. They were made just to continue a product line that may have once been fun.
Our job was quality, which supposedly involved not only bugs, but comments on gameplay as well... But, as I quickly learned, a comment was quickly to be waived. They cared only about locks & crashes -- as well as they should, being that there is no such thing as a patch for console games. Nonetheless, they still should of cared about quality of product. The products might not of locked up, but who cares, the games were horible.
Now, games today seemed to be geared only for profit; whereas, games made in the late eighties, and early nineties were made before the rush of investors backing multi-million dollar games. Putting pressure on developers to meet deadlines, include features which don''tfit the game, and just adding general commercialliziation. I''m sure there were many investors backing the larger PC game companies, and console game producers...
But, for the most part, many PC games were not mainstream with consumers, it was rare for the average person to even have a PC pre-Windows. Alot of PC games were made from garage studios, and small game companies. To me, it seems like they put more of an emphesis on fun then they did profit. Though, I''m sure that the thought of profit drove most developing endevers.
And, this is just my oppinion, based on no research whatsoever...
I have played games since the early eighties, when I could barely read & write. Starting out with the commodore 64, then moving to IBM compatiable PCs in the mid eighties. I also played consoles and have seen their evolution from Atari, to NES & gameboy, to Sega, SNES, to Playstation, to PS2, to the XBox. Though, for reasons I mentioned in previous post, I have always enjoyed PC games more.
I am not saying that all games today are bad... But I am saying that a lot are made just to make a profit, with no intent of making a good product (maybe a crash-less product, for the most part). I worked in the PS2 Game QA field for a while, and got tired of it because of that. Now, it was not that all the games they made that were bad, but many of them were obvisouly not made with the intention of being fun. They were made just to continue a product line that may have once been fun.
Our job was quality, which supposedly involved not only bugs, but comments on gameplay as well... But, as I quickly learned, a comment was quickly to be waived. They cared only about locks & crashes -- as well as they should, being that there is no such thing as a patch for console games. Nonetheless, they still should of cared about quality of product. The products might not of locked up, but who cares, the games were horible.
Now, games today seemed to be geared only for profit; whereas, games made in the late eighties, and early nineties were made before the rush of investors backing multi-million dollar games. Putting pressure on developers to meet deadlines, include features which don''tfit the game, and just adding general commercialliziation. I''m sure there were many investors backing the larger PC game companies, and console game producers...
But, for the most part, many PC games were not mainstream with consumers, it was rare for the average person to even have a PC pre-Windows. Alot of PC games were made from garage studios, and small game companies. To me, it seems like they put more of an emphesis on fun then they did profit. Though, I''m sure that the thought of profit drove most developing endevers.
And, this is just my oppinion, based on no research whatsoever...
I think that Grellin is right on many games, but by the same token, there are some old PC games with which I am STILL fascinated.
Like Ultima 7. Call me crazy. (You''re crazy!) but every year or two I pull it out and play with it for several hours, even days. It''s close to 10 years old, and I still enjoy playing it. I think most games that are anything but Adventure/RPG''s get old after several years, but since Adventure/RPG''s are based on a STORY, they can remain entertaining after many years, the same way that I go back and reread good books after a few years. I believe any game based on something that is itself timeless, like a good story, will itself be able to be timeless.
Yeah, it''s hard to get over the "crappy" graphics and sound and interface, but once you do, it''s almost more real than a game with good graphics. I think your mind supplies the missing elements, and you can SEE the game, the same way you can SEE a book while you''re reading it.
And, although they were before my time, I''m sure the same holds true for purely text based games. If you can just get over the fact that they are limited technologically, they can come alive to you.
Like Ultima 7. Call me crazy. (You''re crazy!) but every year or two I pull it out and play with it for several hours, even days. It''s close to 10 years old, and I still enjoy playing it. I think most games that are anything but Adventure/RPG''s get old after several years, but since Adventure/RPG''s are based on a STORY, they can remain entertaining after many years, the same way that I go back and reread good books after a few years. I believe any game based on something that is itself timeless, like a good story, will itself be able to be timeless.
Yeah, it''s hard to get over the "crappy" graphics and sound and interface, but once you do, it''s almost more real than a game with good graphics. I think your mind supplies the missing elements, and you can SEE the game, the same way you can SEE a book while you''re reading it.
And, although they were before my time, I''m sure the same holds true for purely text based games. If you can just get over the fact that they are limited technologically, they can come alive to you.
[size=2]Darwinbots - [size=2]Artificial life simulation
I think biowares baldurs gate is a GREAT game, both of them, 1 and 2. They''re both running on 2D engines with pretty decent graphics, but that doesn''t get in the way of their depth. You should definetly check them out if you haven''t already. Takes a while to get into it, but once you do, you''ll be hooked.
Matthew Overstreet
Matthew Overstreet
Divinus EntertainmentLand of Relics Art Directorhttp://divinus.net
January 15, 2004 03:09 PM
I think its sad that for the most part games need to have the latest 3d technology with vertex shaders and all the buzz words to be able to compete in the market, there was a time when any single person fairly good at computers and math could create a "top notch" game in the terms of graphics, gameplay was all that mattered then because graphics maxxed out fairly quickly.
Now dozens of people are requried to make a game with enough eye candy to attract the kiddies.
I am 14, and I enjoy playing Gauntlet and Joust, and to me one of the greatest games ever made is Avara, it had simplistic polygon graphics, no textures, but it is incredibly addictive.
Often I sit down at my computer and I realise that there are no games on it I truely like, I will always inevitebly tire of them, that never happened with Avara, I could play it for an entire day and never once become bored, because it had awsome gameplay, and that is what realy matters.
Now dozens of people are requried to make a game with enough eye candy to attract the kiddies.
I am 14, and I enjoy playing Gauntlet and Joust, and to me one of the greatest games ever made is Avara, it had simplistic polygon graphics, no textures, but it is incredibly addictive.
Often I sit down at my computer and I realise that there are no games on it I truely like, I will always inevitebly tire of them, that never happened with Avara, I could play it for an entire day and never once become bored, because it had awsome gameplay, and that is what realy matters.
ah I too get struk by nostalgia when playing either of these games:
-metal gear solid (i''m 15, so i missed out on the originals =( )
-monkey island (fortunatly, i can play them, but I still wish i was there when they were new)
-more to come =)
-metal gear solid (i''m 15, so i missed out on the originals =( )
-monkey island (fortunatly, i can play them, but I still wish i was there when they were new)
-more to come =)
If you didn''t know, here is a site that will let you search and download a lot of the older games that we all miss. And if you did know, fun aren''t they!
The Under-Dogs
"If you are not willing to try, you will never succeed!"
Grellin
The Under-Dogs
"If you are not willing to try, you will never succeed!"
Grellin
"If you are not willing to try, you will never succeed!"GrellinC++ Game Programming
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
Recommended Tutorials
Advertisement