brokenergy Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Let's look at the 90's. Gaming was awesome. N64, Zelda, Mario, Metroid, those were great games in their day. Some still are. No it really wasn't please stop making it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwellufool Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Let's look at the 90's. Gaming was awesome. N64, Zelda, Mario, Metroid, those were great games in their day. Some still are. No it really wasn't please stop making it up. How so? The 90's birthed 3D gaming and had good marketing. On the PC side we had Starcraft, Diablo, Command and Conquer, those were great. If you weren't, say, 6-18 in that time period, I guess you might have been able to look down on some of those games. But think, what's the ratio of people who knew all the hot titles coming up compared to those who didn't? Or, just knew pre-existing titles, and followed those (which makes me return to the Zelda games, Mario games, and Metroid games). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboUK Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 He makes some good points but I think he is off on a few issues. The Sony debacle was a huge failure on Sonys part to secure users data, when you sign up to something like PSN you have every right to expect a certain level of security, what you don't expect is the morons to store peoples data in plain text. Maybe the author of that article couldn't care less about keeping his data secure but many quite rightly do. The most baffling whiners however are the ones that are so hypocritical they’ve actually become self-righteous. Every time a game announces its DRM measures, it is immediately “boycotted” and labeled “oppressive”. While this sometimes may actually be true, the real irony is that those complaining the loudest are the same people who were just going to pirate the damn thing anyway. The best part is, those people actually seem to genuinely feel hard done by, it’s like that sense of entitlement in the community has become so powerful that pirates have started to sincerely feel it themselves. Logic fail, pirates couldn't care less about DRM because they don't have to deal with it. Gamers put up with a lot of crap, we get mis-sold products by paid for reviews, bullshots, doctored promo videos and blurb on the boxes that bear no resemblance to the actual product. We also put up with faulty products, sometime games that don't work at all. What other industry gets away selling faulty and non functional goods? It's no surprise that gamers are a cynical bunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brokenergy Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Let's look at the 90's. Gaming was awesome. N64, Zelda, Mario, Metroid, those were great games in their day. Some still are. No it really wasn't please stop making it up. How so? The 90's birthed 3D gaming and had good marketing. On the PC side we had Starcraft, Diablo, Command and Conquer, those were great. If you weren't, say, 6-18 in that time period, I guess you might have been able to look down on some of those games. But think, what's the ratio of people who knew all the hot titles coming up compared to those who didn't? Or, just knew pre-existing titles, and followed those (which makes me return to the Zelda games, Mario games, and Metroid games). What I'm saying is people say the 90's were great forever and ever and ever but once you start playing those games again you can see the huge limitations of the decade. So no, the 90's didn't do anything great in gaming (because of concept of limitations). The 00's however, really started to redefine the genres in gaming. In fact because of the 00's we can start throwing genre away because it's too restrictive to games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted1848331User Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Actually the 90's DID do something great in gaming... Had nothing advanced in the 90's, there wouldn't be 3D environment gaming. The N64 is a good example. The 90's were limited, but we were just inching towards the games we have today. I can't say the 90's were the best though. I personally like this decade much more :P (Well, last decade and this year.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwellufool Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) Let's look at the 90's. Gaming was awesome. N64, Zelda, Mario, Metroid, those were great games in their day. Some still are. No it really wasn't please stop making it up. How so? The 90's birthed 3D gaming and had good marketing. On the PC side we had Starcraft, Diablo, Command and Conquer, those were great. If you weren't, say, 6-18 in that time period, I guess you might have been able to look down on some of those games. But think, what's the ratio of people who knew all the hot titles coming up compared to those who didn't? Or, just knew pre-existing titles, and followed those (which makes me return to the Zelda games, Mario games, and Metroid games). What I'm saying is people say the 90's were great forever and ever and ever but once you start playing those games again you can see the huge limitations of the decade. So no, the 90's didn't do anything great in gaming (because of concept of limitations). The 00's however, really started to redefine the genres in gaming. In fact because of the 00's we can start throwing genre away because it's too restrictive to games. I'm talking more of how people looked at it at the time. Not how we look at it now. Now, yeah, the only game I've bothered to go back to play was Diablo II because I ended up picking up the Diablo Archive a while back. Surprisingly fun and interesting read, by the way. But for the time it was great. Edited August 13, 2011 by dwellufool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stupidguy Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Alas, some people have taken to the streets with their sense of entitlement in the last few days.Ain't that the truth...People are extremely self entitled. Gimme gimme gimme and never expect to give back. I like games where people don't talk to each other, because it seems everyone is an a**wipe if they're talking. *cough* WoW *cough* Anyways great article. :armscrossed: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziitch Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) Another fault I find is that he uses examples that have a company involved that has a mass following or has a large community. If he tried to find an example with a small community and following, he'd be hard-pressed to find such a case. Let me put it this way - If the industry would stop focusing on who has the biggest numbers and instead keep with a small fanbase and pure dedication, they will find that smaller sizes are easier to maintain and please and the reception much more rewarding. I still think that gaming isn't for everyone, and trying to market that gaming is for everyone will only result in setting impossible goals and an inevitable "second crash" of the industry. ub3rman123 put it that gamers were destroying their own hobby. As far as I know, a hobby isn't taken on by everyone, nor marketed in such a matter. Maybe it's time we hold back the industry and let it die down into a controllable state, so that once again it's somewhat of a hobby industry where real innovation and honest development can come in and have its fair share instead of the mass production of more-of-the-same games that's going on today. The truly dedicated will again find pleasure in what is released afterwards, as the stagnant saturation of the industry will be depleted. But, let's not close the doors on new players completely, so perhaps a "doorman" that will ask undedicated people who do nothing but complain or want nothing but profit to leave or be booted out might put us right back on track. Edited August 13, 2011 by ziitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halororor Posted August 13, 2011 Author Share Posted August 13, 2011 Another fault I find is that he uses examples that have a company involved that has a mass following or has a large community. If he tried to find an example with a small community and following, he'd be hard-pressed to find such a case. Let me put it this way - If the industry would stop focusing on who has the biggest numbers and instead keep with a small fanbase and pure dedication, they will find that smaller sizes are easier to maintain and please and the reception much more rewarding. I still think that gaming isn't for everyone, and trying to market that gaming is for everyone will only result in setting impossible goals and an inevitable "second crash" of the industry. But they still need to make money. Smaller fanbase = less money. If the best they can do is cater to a small fanbase, no publisher is going to want to take them on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziitch Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Maybe, but what you just mentioned assumes that all publishers are just out for profit and numbers. I don't think that isn't true for all of them, and I know it isn't - Paradox Interactive is such an example. While small itself, it's willing to bring in fledgling companies that have good concepts or very catchy gameplay; if you have ever played Mount and Blade you would know they are the ones who published the game. Another is CDProjekt, which alone proves that small publisher/developer companies can have a profound effect on the industry. But see, if everyone keeps small, but thinks big in terms of influence, depth, effect, and innovation, we would have a much more stable and happier industry than what it is today. I really do think we're letting profit and money occlude ideas for games, as well as how a successful game would be defined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts