I do think Elden Ring will be considered a classic perhaps but Rangarök and Horizon FW, something we will remember in 20 years? i don't think so.
Oh, they will be and many others that we may not like much right now or barely heard of. People get that nostalgia even if something wasn't that good at all.
For example I see many such games in the "Games of 2002" above. Northland, I of the Dragon, Earth & Beyond, Project Nomads, RHEM, Prisoner of War, American Conquest etc were just average and forgotten next year but now we consider them "old goldies" because we like to romanticise the past. Even Gothic 2 was rough to play back then and took me 3 tries to hook me after many insists from a schoolmate.
I am sure in 20 years this category will consist of Stray, Sifu, Tunic, Pentiment, The Quarry, Cult of the Lamb, Neon White, Citizen Sleeper, A Plague Tale: Requiem and/or others we hate on rn like Gotham Knights and The Callisto Protocol.
^ those games from the 2002 pic are not supposed to represent "classics" or anything. It's just a list of pc games that came out in 2002, good, middling, bad. They're not supposed to be just good ones or classics.
I don't think "nostalgia" works like that, nor was it ever a proper word for what we actually mean when we use it. The actual good shit from 2002 - Warcraft, Age of Myth, Mafia, Morrowind, Medal of Honor, Battlefield - they always were good, still are, always will.
Complete turds like how Horizon always was have only gotten worse with time in peoples minds. The sequel came and went like a wet fart. And mid games like gow where they cram every focus tested banality from every popular game on the market was contested since it came out. Since it lost it's "fresh take" apeal from 2018. These two games in particular will never be classic of anything in the long run, im sure of it.
If in 20 years the classics from 2022 will consist of stray, sifu and the quarry, im sure we'll laugh about it as we do now. What an awful gaming year this was
I don't think "nostalgia" works like that, nor was it ever a proper word for what we actually mean when we use it.
To me this is exactly how nostalgia works.
Back then we had no 'real' expectations of what a game needed to meet. We thought we did, but we didnt. Not like we do now. We didn't nitpick every facet of the game as we had not built up a standard of bar that gets nudged up every new iteration of a game.
Many games from that time was just as nitpickable as ones today is. But either it was a 'new' type of game we had no gauge to nitpick against, or the standards of perfection was lower enough then that just a new game was exciting enough to overlook simplicity, tedium, or flaws.
If anyone of the 2022 'meh its ok' games came out in 2002 with 2002 graphics, we would be looking back at it as a fond memory game.
Like WoW (the original), was it good? No..not even close by today standards. A linear [if you followed the quests to level], shallow MMO with boring fetch or kill quests, and very very basic character development compared to other MMOs before it.
But why do so many remember it fondly, even as a massive happy memory? Because most that played it has no gauge to put it against, most never did an MMO despite there was many MMO's before it. But it was the first to be "easy enough your grandma and you as a 12yo can grasp it".
It's the memories of playing with friends a game unlike what they usually played. It was their first MMO, not even a good one by those days established MMO standards, but accessible and fresh to those that never did an MMO before. ANYTHING it had was new to them, a game unlike they played before.
If it came out now it would be like any of the other 101 generic MMOs out now.
There is quite a few games me and my friend go "Man remember that game? Lets see if we can get it working" and after a few hours and we get use to the tint of the rose tinted glasses, we usually go: This doesn't feel as spectacular as we remember it. We only are playing it because of the 'member berries. We are enjoying remembering enjoying it back them.
That's exactly what nostalgia is in my opinion: Remembering how good things were based on your less formed outlook at the time of what good was. So the level of happy you felt then, would not the be the same as now, if exposed to the same thing. (Remembering how you felt. but not how little it took at the time to feel that way, compared to now).
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Last edited by DXWarlock on Tue, 20th Dec 2022 16:36; edited 2 times in total
I feel nostalgia is misused because what we actually want to say when we use the word is more on the lines of "rose tinted glasses". Meaning either that said game was never good or that we have a distorted look of a past game.
"If anyone of the 2022 'meh its ok' games came out in 2002 with 2002 graphics, we would be looking back at it as a fond memory game. "
God no. 2002 was not in the distant past where only shit games came out and we didnt know better. Its filled with a ton of games that can take the best of today outside tech advancements by sheer design and gameplay. Not everything naturally, every period had the usual array of shovelware. Perhaps not even the most, just the very best ones. I guess it depends on what gaming circles you were in, but mines were always bitching about details Linear games for example were since all times docked points by just the nature of being linear and having less options compared to the idea of having choice instead of having none. It doesnt matter that it was 1995.
The reason we started bitching about every detail was because how aproaching the 2010's, games started getting simplified and neutered more and more compared to what came before them. The bitching didnt start because games got better. But i guess we're in a better place now that where we were when Dragon Age 2 came out and other stuff
Maybe difference of opinion?
Any 2002 game if It came out now, with the mechanics and gameplay it had then, today. It would be a 'I'll buy it when on sale, or pirate it maybe to try it".
A prime example is Sim City (the first one). I remember dumping 100's of hours at least into the game, thinking it was the pinnacle of city sim games and had depth beyond depth at the time. Went to watch some gameplay videos some time earlier this year...other than the 'man that brings back memories' of the visuals and sounds. Being objective I realized it was a very very basic game. If I was to play now I would be nitpicking things: Why can I not do this? Why is this menu annoying like this to use? why is this placement tool so tedious?
Went back and tried Battlefield 1942 with some friends about a year ago after fussing with getting it to actually run, and work on a fake LAN so we could MP. Couldn't get into it like we did before. We played like an hour and got bored. It was shocking how back then we felt it was complex gameplay, and deep, and felt like limitless options and possibilities. Playing it again with countless 'open field FPS' type games under our belt. we both sort of agreed: Man this is a really basic run and gun WW2 FPS. We LOVED remembering how much we enjoyed it. But not so much trying to relove it.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Last edited by DXWarlock on Tue, 20th Dec 2022 16:43; edited 1 time in total
I think simply put: Nostalgia is the feeling of "wow I totally forgot about this stuff that existed x years ago" and it suddenly gives you back that feeling for a brief second you felt around the time you were dealing with that stuff.
So lets say: I replay blood 1 every year, so I kissed nostalgia goodbye with that. Its fresh, it "stays in my memory" almost all the time.
But I totally forgot about Rise of the robots so when i started it up I do got these brief "feelings" when i heard the mirage logo startup music, the menu, the backgrounds etc...but this "feeling" only lasts for brief seconds (maybe).
Maybe difference of opinion?
Any 2002 game if It came out now, with the mechanics and gameplay it had then, today. It would be a 'I'll buy it when on sale, or pirate it maybe to try it".
A prime example is Sim City (the first one). I remember dumping 100's of hours at least into the game, thinking it was the pinnacle of city sim games and had depth beyond depth at the time. Went to watch some gameplay videos some time earlier this year...other than the 'man that brings back memories' of the visuals and sounds. Being objective I realized it was a very very basic game. If I was to play now I would be nitpicking things: Why can I not do this? Why is this menu annoying like this to use? why is this placement tool so tedious?
Went back and tried Battlefield 1942 with some friends about a year ago after fussing with getting it to actually run, and work on a fake LAN so we could MP. Couldn't get into it like we did before. We played like an hour and got bored. It was shocking how back then we felt it was complex gameplay, and deep, and felt like limitless options and possibilities. Playing it again with countless 'open field FPS' type games under our belt. we both sort of agreed: Man this is a really basic run and gun WW2 FPS. We LOVED remembering how much we enjoyed it. But not so much trying to relove it.
Yeah, but you're chosing bad examples Naturally that going so far as 1989 for Sim City 1 will feel bad, when the following ones came out in the glory days of gaming, when everything was getting more and more complex. But you can look at Sim City 4 from 03 compared to the one that came out 10 years or so later. XCom from 2012 and its sequel just took the one from 1994 and removed elements from it to make it more palatable.
Gothic 2 just had a mod released for it last year, no ? Its overwhelmingly positive on steam, got mod of the year on moddb. Play Warcraft 3 today. What modern game trumps it ? In anything ? Play NOLF 2. What is even its modern counter part ? I cant even finish Wolfesntein 2's 6 hour campaign. Maybe not the most apt comparison, but my god if NOLF 2 doesnt obliterate it from any angle imaginable.
After i played this year's utter horseshit of a campaign from Call of Duty where its scripted to the point that you're triggering scripts every 5 seconds, outside of a few specific instances where you're left to actually play, i got in the mood and replayed the add-ons for Allied Assault. The point of origin, ground zero for a lot of modern gamedesign. But my god, it's so fantastic to play. Just look at this mission. How open, brutal, ferocious it is. It's so open it feels like an immersive sim compared to newer games. The weapons. The recoil. The sounds. The heavy damage you do and get. It would absolutely destroy today if launched. Naturally, you wouldnt launch it 1:1 as it looked in 2002. Modern polish and everything, just more or less the same underlying design. It would be top tier
Worlf of warcraft had a solid foundation also at release. Namely being a Blizzard game and with warcraft series success it was a no brainer it would be successful in the short term. In the long term it just had to not suck. It didn't suck gameplay wise, but storywise there was not much to talk about. But as kids that time story wasn't so important.
@qqq agree with majority of that, these were objectively better games on about every level outside graphics.
Graphics don't make a good game, case In point the turd Callisto Protocol. I wouldn't even pirate that game with it's horrible QTE combat. original un remastered dead space shits on it in every catagory. Story better, gameplay better, AtMoSpHEre better, controls better. The notion that's it's just nostalgia and newer is better is so stupid.
The absolute best games this year all have SNES or worse era graphics .. I guess it's nostalgia again as it's not possible for 2D games to be good - just stop this line of thinking ffs
Beethoven, Mozart, Beatles, Jimi Hendrix - just nostalgia shit by today's standards
Alien, rosemary's baby, good bad uglyb- nostalgia shit compared to Thor: 4.
I guess it depends on what gaming circles you were in, but mines were always bitching about details
This might be why we see it different.
But overall the games I like to play, are roughly the same or better than they was before in terms of game advancement, features, and depth.
From my subjective viewpoint, games I like, casuals usually dont. So the target audience back then is the same as now: The narrow band of people that like a particular thing, that there is enough of to cater a game to what they want because there is no 'broader' audience to aim for with it, then or now. MSFS, Cities Skylines, Sim Racing, ARMA, Factorio, Dwarf Fortress, Kerbal Space (and so on) doesn't get diluted to appeal to casual gamers nearly as much as mainstream gaming.
The console/PC player that plays CoD and warframe, doesn't really overlap to sway 'what brings in the money' with the 'this game is made to frustrate you' sim sandbox-mechanic loving gamers.
But the games you list back then, was aimed at a narrower audience, so the target to hit was more defined. 'Gamers' in 2002 was a subset of the population a majority of them the type to want games that satisfy the reason they joined that narrow span of people at the time. PC gamers even more so. As time went on, more people got into it and it wasn't just kids, and nerds play PC console games on a social ideal like it was back then. Casual PC/console adult gamers in 2002 was not a major audience, if at all.
So now they aim to a bigger audience, making what we see as challenging gameplay as that niche 'gamers' back then 'hard' to that new broader casual audience. What we saw as depth, the casual gamer sees as time sink or tedium.
So from your perspective, your genre changes a lot since you and your kind (the hardcore, even if rarely get time to now a days) are no longer the milk cows of people wanting to play, It's the people that expect console/PC games to just be slightly harder and more details versions of 'serious' mobile games.
You have to remember, most everyone playing games today (well the money making audience) and what groomed what they like and why, wasn't even alive in 2002. Take fortnite, a game I think is dull, retarded, and pointless on every level being the cash cow it is. Clearly what I liked in 2002 for shooter games, isnt what gamers want now.
Now this not is a comparison or smug glare, more an observation of the difference: Gamers like you are not the cash cow audience anymore of the very games you love (which is sad). But my type was and still are the only real audience of the type I like. So I notice less change diluted by what the masses would like.
So triple AAA games made now a days like before, I feel will be unicorns because AAA makers have a choice: Aim at the old school gamer, get 9/10 game reviews and make like they use to cash. Or aim at the broader home gamer as a whole, get a 6/10 rating by the now minority hardcore gaming critiquing it, but 5x the cash.
Good games (like then), like people pointed out will be relegated to smaller studios that can make profit still, off what is now the small audience of those back then that still want it.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
It was only ever a comparison of AAA games, I'd agree they have changed design/audience for one that doesn't interest me much. It's the only way i can understand how Callisto Protocol can have the terrible combat system that it shipped with. 100+ million invested, to ship with that broken combat system ??
Elden Ring sold extremely well, that's aimed at the hardcore gamer crowd. The idea AAA must be dumbed down, casual etc. isn't true. I guess no-one plays LOL, Valorant, CS (Still ffs), POE, Fortnight, Apex Legends, Destiny, Anno series, Pathfinder etc. While I'm not interested in the bulk of these games, they most definitely are for hardcore gamers.
Over the past few years, I've replayed many single-player titles from that era (mostly action/RPGs/tactical games - been posting in the Screenshot thread also), and honestly, I had a glorious time with them. No nostalgia nor rose-tinted glasses were involved, just genuine enjoyment and appreciation for mechanics and concepts that sadly have been either lost or neutered to the point of becoming unrecognizable.
Thankfully, there are still good games being made (especially from the indie scene and A/AA where there's still some creativity left ) and Elden Ring for instance was a very pleasant AAA exception, but this is an industry that in my opinion has objectively reached its saturation point and has unfortunately taken a direction that to me feels like a missed opportunity more than anything else.
I guess no-one plays LOL, Valorant, CS (Still ffs), POE, Fortnight, Apex Legends, Destiny, Anno series, Pathfinder etc. While I'm not interested in the bulk of these games, they most definitely are for hardcore gamers.
Such different outlooks on what is what. If asked to list quickly without thinking the 5 first games I think of that are casual/weekend console warrior games. Most those would make the list.
They are not hardcore games (again my perspective, not objective rebuttal), they are fast paced button mashers. It's simply outlook. Ask me what I consider a harcore shooter Id say ARMA or some of the rainbow six games. Bunny hopping CS isn't one Id consider. Its twitchy and fast paced. But not hardcore (to me).
And pathfinder is just "Tabletop for those that dont have the attention span to remember the mechanics or dedication for real tabletop" to me. But I admit I am 100% biased that real freeform, 'Anything at all you can think of to try at anytime, anywhere' GM ran tabletop stomps a CRPG based on it anyday. A Hardcore tabletop game, requires an actual tabletop in my biased opinion. The CRPG is just a dumbed down Pathfinder casual story RPG.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
... Beatles, Jimi Hendrix - just nostalgia shit by today's standards
Imbecile thinking.
AS much as it will annoy people or cause strong feelings. I think being the first doesn't always mean the best. Both these artist was the 'first' of their kind. And being the first you are by nature the best so far. Hendrix? Good guitarist that did things not done before. But no the best at those things. Just he was the only one at the time so first place goes to the only guy in the race.
And Beatles. I Don't get the hype of. They are good enough band for sure with some memorable hits (most of them simply by repetition of hearing the songs and told they was to me anyway). But take out that they was great simply because different at the time, and I feel they are a top 20 band for the time absolutely. But GOAT? nah...hear me out
I think of it like Nirvana, which I like. But I feel is WAY overhyped. They was 'meh' in context of talent. And They are called the "Beatles of grunge". Yea. When you are the first one, you are influential by means of a new thing, but it doesn't always mean one of the best of that thing ever. Just the first with no comparator to be worse than.
It's the tendency to defend the first as the best, out of...patriotism (not the right word at all, word escape me, hopefully you know the right one) that the old school G's of it somehow are always better than those that follow. To allow thinking the inverse is an insult to the pedestal we placed them on.
I see games the same way. Games long ago that did it first, doesn't always mean they are better than now. They was just best at the time by virtue of being one of only a few in the genre to compete against.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Your making a short novella with the general consensus that older means worse but loved because "nostalgia". I'm not a huge classical music fan, but I love watching a professional orchestra play music I've never heard by composers from earlier centuries.
I can say the same for almost any form of entertainment, I've been watching old Dario Argenta movies of late I've never seen or heard of and they are fantastic, much better than modern counterparts. Well written stories, developed characters, acting, directing often superior - how is this nostalgia?
No I was making the connection first to do something, doesn't mean it has to stay the best that ever did it, simply because they was the first you see do it.
I never said that all firsts are inherently worse. More that they aren't always inherently defacto the best.
There is games that evolve over time that DO get better, and others that get worse.
You are inferring that I was saying it's always nostalgia. When I was simply saying that some, get the benefit of nostalgia like on a scale of 1 to 10, some gets an auto +4 added simply because they was a 10 at the time, and people dont want think it might only be a 6 now.
No where did I say that if it's old, it must be bad. Just as if its old it must be better isn't true.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
For what it's worth, my game of the year is Pentiment, which involves moving your character to the left and right and occasionally clicking something on the screen or making a dialog choice.
DXWarlock wrote:
AmpegV4 wrote:
... Beatles, Jimi Hendrix - just nostalgia shit by today's standards
Imbecile thinking.
AS much as it will annoy people or cause strong feelings. I think being the first doesn't always mean the best. Both these artist was the 'first' of their kind. And being the first you are by nature the best so far. Hendrix? Good guitarist that did things not done before. But no the best at those things. Just he was the only one at the time so first place goes to the only guy in the race.
And Beatles. I Don't get the hype of. They are good enough band for sure with some memorable hits (most of them simply by repetition of hearing the songs and told they was to me anyway). But take out that they was great simply because different at the time, and I feel they are a top 20 band for the time absolutely. But GOAT? nah...hear me out
I think of it like Nirvana, which I like. But I feel is WAY overhyped. They was 'meh' in context of talent. And They are called the "Beatles of grunge". Yea. When you are the first one, you are influential by means of a new thing, but it doesn't always mean one of the best of that thing ever. Just the first with no comparator to be worse than.
It's the tendency to defend the first as the best, out of...patriotism (not the right word at all, word escape me, hopefully you know the right one) that the old school G's of it somehow are always better than those that follow. To allow thinking the inverse is an insult to the pedestal we placed them on.
I see games the same way. Games long ago that did it first, doesn't always mean they are better than now. They was just best at the time by virtue of being one of only a few in the genre to compete against.
This is were you are wrong. It's not about being the first in something, it's about being original and making the best with the limitations at hand, whether this is technology available, or personal talent or whatever.
Both Jimi Hendrix and The Beatles (in particular McCartney) were constantly searching for new experiences and sounds, and as a result invented technologies still in use today. But they were/are also brilliant musicians to begin with. Whether it's Yesterday (just 1 accoustic guitar), or Penny Lane (literally has dozens of layers).
The reason why their recording techniques are still used today, is simply because it was great to begin with, not because they were the first to do it. For all their effort, if Hendrix or McCartney wrote shit songs, no one would have talked about them today.
As for Nirvana, this is the exact opposite. Cobain wasn't a brilliant guitarplayer like Hendrix, but he was a great songwriter and knew both his limitations and strengths and made it his own.
The Beatles are objectively the GOAT, btw. It amazes me how people still discuss this
There must have been a door there in the wall, when I came in.
Truly gone fishing.
We are comparing very different medium tbh, I don't think we should be involving a comparison with music to discuss it as an art form AND music bands whatsoever when we have a hard time agreeing on what nostalgia should be
Nostalgia is simple to define : it's a longing for things of the past.
I get your sentiment DXW and I suspect some are a bit blind to it at times, or are oblivious to the fact they enjoy modern games based on decades-old concepts that are hardly improved at their core (Factorio/management games or any of the vintage FPS games popping left and right comes to mind) - but still speak to them.
qqq, MoH:AA is a masterpiece, but I replayed it some years ago and it hasn't aged as well for me as it did for you. I could still marvel at stuff in isolation such as the AI, some scripting, or find this or that map/gameplay design very clever, but I could also clearly see the limitations they were working with and a variety of issues that I couldn't quite pinpoint during early playthroughs - nothing to do with graphics, just the mere limited scope of the Q3A engine.
I just couldn't quite grasp the "wow" factor the same way I did when first played it, I could see all the little defects more acutely.. yet playing a Monkey Island game in its 256 colours-glory remains a pretty intact, preserved experience to me. It's pretty genre dependent too.. 3D gaming ruined it all !
I mean, I'm still playing JKA actively with MBII alongside a playerbase of what.. 100+ players at peak hours, but I well know we are just going in circles in a loop, hanging on something that we know inside out and that has given out every gameplay experience it had to offer since a while.
Basically, it's a bittersweet mix of nostalgia (it's old, netcode and a lot of base stuff can't really be improved) and lack of better options (no game has done sabering as well, and this mod makes the MP experience similar to BF2 in terms of quality, all things considered).
DXWarlock wrote:
AmpegV4 wrote:
I guess no-one plays LOL, Valorant, CS (Still ffs), POE, Fortnight, Apex Legends, Destiny, Anno series, Pathfinder etc. While I'm not interested in the bulk of these games, they most definitely are for hardcore gamers.
Such different outlooks on what is what. If asked to list quickly without thinking the 5 first games I think of that are casual/weekend console warrior games. Most those would make the list.
They are not hardcore games (again my perspective, not objective rebuttal), they are fast paced button mashers. It's simply outlook. Ask me what I consider a harcore shooter Id say ARMA or some of the rainbow six games. Bunny hopping CS isn't one Id consider. Its twitchy and fast paced. But not hardcore (to me).
And pathfinder is just "Tabletop for those that dont have the attention span to remember the mechanics or dedication for real tabletop" to me. But I admit I am 100% biased that real freeform, 'Anything at all you can think of to try at anytime, anywhere' GM ran tabletop stomps a CRPG based on it anyday. A Hardcore tabletop game, requires an actual tabletop in my biased opinion. The CRPG is just a dumbed down Pathfinder casual story RPG.
This is the part where I don't follow you any more relative to what you wrote earlier
Do hardcore games need to be tailored for hardcore gamers at inception to earn the badge ? As in, if more "casual" gamers join it, it either means it wasn't hardcore enough to begin with, or that the playerbase is going to shit ? Hardcore becomes synonymous with inaccessible, which is.. not much of a quality for a game to have
I'm being facetious because that's every mil-sim discord in a nutshell, and the distinction between what's a hardcore game or not is entirely up to the corresponding playerbase's optics about it - it's more glaring in such communities which are stuck in an in-between, realism which pushed to the max is not fun to many or at all, and "fun" which pushed to the max becomes brainless COD crap.
True simulations like DCS World are another breed entirely to me, since realism/perfect fidelity to a complex set of rules is the key core gameplay feature there.
For everything else, it is quite just a matter of outlook as you wrote (besides a basis of sufficiently "hardcore" mechanics allowing "hardcore" gameplay) - and thus, ARMA could be classified as a convoluted RP sandbox for spreadsheets maniacs who are fine with firing one bullet throughout an hour (and call the experience intense ! I'm kidding, I do get it), and CSGO as the ultimate actual display of skills in what ultimately remains a shooter game in which you're kind of supposed to aim & shoot at targets.
In multiplayer games, the challenge is what you choose your aims to be ; but earning the top spots in ranked (aka what remains the most common goal for each casual player) consistently is a very hardcore experience, and one most humpers are at best indifferent to - despite loving hardcore gaming !
Our hobby became an actual worldwide industry, for better or worse
It's become quite homogenized, has been vampirized upon by megacorporations which can't help themselves but behave as such.. but at the same time, it's never been quite as rich as today, and innovation is there to be found - but it's become so popular it can work against its "best interest". We've got a thriving indie industry and that is already a pretty happy outcome all things considered ; just have to accept big licenses are out of their reach, while that could happen before - and lead to many, many crappy licensed games too
R5 5600X - 3070FE - 16GB DDR4 3600 - Asus B550 TUF Gaming Plus - BeQuiet Straight Power 11 750W - Pure Base 500DX
@TheZor
I suppose it's like hotdogs in the term of hardcore to me. I have to explain as that sentence makes no fucking sense reading it..lol
[Hardcore games, and hardcore gamers are two seperate things to me, that share a common adjective]
Eating hotdogs is not harcore, competitive hotdog eating and spending a lot of time honing your skills to be jaw dropping at how good you are at that is hardcore. The hotdog itself isnt the hardcore part. Just like LoL and fortnite are not hardcore. At least not in term of what I think of as 'hardcore game'. Because everyone and their grandma plays it. Hardcore game fanatics can play it too but its not made to target them..so it's not one (if that makes sense).
My daughter and her friends play it all the time, and to call them gamers at all is a liberal use of it to start with. Even if you ask her if shes a gamer (like her dad) you get "No, I play games sometimes, but I'm not a gamer"
Anyone can fish, and some do when they get time. A "Hardcore fisherman' schedules his weekends around fishing and everything else gets in the way of fishing if it comes up on weekends.
To me a hardcore gamers are ones that actively take time out of the day to play and learn the games, they plan for it like a hobby. Not ones that play games simply because they have time to. Games that can be played on the bus on the way to work, to me are not hardcore. They are time passers...not a hobby. (if any of that clicks how I said it to make sense).
For the vampirized upon by megacorporations, I don't think that's a fair way to put it. They aim to make what the masses want. And what the masses want now, isnt what we wanted 20 year ago. Most wasn't even around 20 years ago.
We are no longer the target, and raise our nose in denial we aren't when games are released that aim at the new majority gamer and their wants.
(I did it with WoW, I personally think WoW is what ruined the MMO market for 'what it was' before it. I LOVED MMO's before it..after it they was all cookie cutter, no stats or skills to refine and customize, with boring basic 10 slot action with gear treadmills..dont get me started on the concept of raiding, hate it with a passion..lol)
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
I still keep my old magazines about PC games (Bulgarian ones from 1999 to 2006) and remembered in one of them from 2005 there is an article "Is the PC gaming dying?!". Decided to re-read it today. If we changed the names of games it can totally relate to this year as well. And remember the year before, 2004, is now considered one of the best years for PC games when we had Half-Life 2, World of Warcraft, Unreal Tournament 2004, Rome: Total War, Far Cry, Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War, Thief: Deadly Shadows, Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines and others. But notice anything about this list? The only new IP from these "goldies" is Far Cry. Yes, most of them are sequels and/or based on already well known universes like WoW and Dawn of War. The article doesn't have some in-depth charts or statistics, only mentioned that last year he consoles had 5 times more profit than PC games. So the sad fact was that many companies, including already established ones preferred to make average consoles games and make 2-3 times more money than a great PC game. And those still loyal to the PC (apparently one of them was Ubisoft ) were playing it safe and made such "risk-free" sequels and even if they were great games they were still not groundbreaking and lacking creativity (yes, I am sure people now will say the opposite).
It mentioned Revenant - the game that was considered "Diablo-killer" until it was rushed and released unfinished due to Eidos getting greedy and scared of the actual Diablo 2 which came few months later. Revenant was given as an example for the "beginning of the end" for PC gaming as in later years more similar disappointments were released. Also was funny to read John Romero described as "the big clown".
Another thing very similar to now is apparently the games from the 80's are considered with richer and better gameplay than those of the end of the 90's and beginning of 2000's which in most cases were only superior in their graphics. Personally are find this weird but at least the author had that opinion.
The biggest difference between then and now I notice is that console games have been more "noob friendly" and accessible (even tho it was still mostly due the lower prices for the hardware) which is why people new and/or without any "software knowledge" could play them. While the PC games were more "geek and hardcore" when players had to install them with drivers and other software. Maybe not so different from now but I think the console games in recent years are arguably more hardcore or with better story like Bloodbourne, Demon Souls, Last of Us and others we now have on PC like God of War and Red Dead Redemption 2.
The whole thing ended as the writer being actually optimistic about the future of the PC games and said when the companies realize the "shovelware" no longer makes enough profit they will once again adjust, evolve and make unique and better games. And that's what really happened, didn't it? 2010's had some really amazing titles.
So this is why I don't like such "New is just getting worse" circle-jerking. We are again at that "stagnation point" where big companions only release sequels but now also Remakes and Remasters which turn worse most times. As we see there is Elden Ring which turned impressive profits so in 2-4 years the wheel spins again we will be in that point of Great Awakening when developers and publishers will risk more and make some of the best games of all time. Well, to be fair, probably mainly Steam was the main reason PC gaming endured the console pressure and prospered after 2005 but we see now how Sony is releasing more and more PS exclusives on desktops so at least we don't have that problem from 2004.
That guy jumped the gun a little bit. 2005 was one of the best years for PC gaming and probably the last E3 where PC owned, with major games announced. He should have waited until E3 2007 to signal the death of pc gaming
Like i said, we were ALWAYS bitching. I think i read some magazine article from 99 where the author was crying about the Warcraft 1 times at the time So in 99 he was feeling nostalgic for 94. But i like to think the bitching was more minimal. There was after all a changing and advancement being felt as we entered the new millenium.
Also, calling those games from 2004 sequels is kinda stretching it. Calling Half Life 2 a sequel, especially in the context of how sequels are today is funny. And Doom 3, a sequel. That came after 10 years and with substantial design changes. Or UT 2004 which introduced vehicles and changed the gameplay pretty radically. 2004 was an awesome year then and there, it wasnt retconed after.
Difference from today is that i dont look fondly at any year after 2010. Even if 10, 11, 12 years have passed, still shit years. 2014 is still one of the worst years. The other ones still bland. Nothing changed after 10 years passed
Maybe it's the genres and the bumpers they have to still be that genre? (Changing genre first way to piss off fans) Or the expectation creep combined?
Let's take First/Third person shooters as an example. How much can be added to it before its convoluted, I mean beyond "you have a gun, you have stats, and maybe gear...and people to shoot be it AI or the other player team, and a way to win" mechanics wise. All that's left to expand on is just how good the story, visuals, and how the current gen tech can convey that better is. Isn't it?
You can have different types of those: Run and Gun, plan and execute, or duck and cover shooter.
But over 20 years, I feel anyway, people expect more than they use to get, without a concrete idea of what that 'more' would be. Just someone needs to make it. And when they add more people go "No no, this isnt like before this new thing isnt what I want".
Like quake 3, one of my favorite shooters. its basic, its get a gun shoot until you die. No story, no plot, no gear/inventory mechanics. Then when someone tries to update it. We get excited its being refreshed, to complain how its different (added vehicles, added stats you can grow over one character, added inventory..what have you) they tried it all and the players went "NO you dont understand, we want the same..but different. This is just different and we didnt want more different, we wanted same different".
I cannot think of anything to add to it to make it better. But if they made Quake 4-20+ the same..Id go "why buy it? It's the same as the last ones" If they change something I will go "It was better before, stop changing things!"
Sure some games are visual and shallow story exposition fluff, wrapped around shit clunky gameplay. But when you play a game and go "This is damn near perfect, now make it better". How do they improve to better, without changing the mechanics that you loved? SOMETHING has to change enough to merit a new game, and that thing that changed enough is going to be the thing a portion of the people loved.
And if they keep the 'winning formula' people will do what they do now when it happens..grow bored of paying for same game in a different dress and makeup, no matter how much they love it. And decry the industry for not innovating, despite most people not being able to pinpoint themselves exactly what would be 'better' (just SOMETHING needs to be) all the while getting use to what it is...and changes to what they grew fond of as is causes anything different to be "can't please all the people all the time".
To say you want games like you use to be, I think really means: I want games like they use to be, with 20 years of refinement and expectation growth added to a thing that makes me feel like I did without that 20 years of higher bar expectation growth" (Make it the same, but different..see circle of conflicting ideals above start looping).
its like classic car nuts. They want cars like they use to make but better. They make that they complain it's not like the good old cars. So They make cars like the good old cars, and most complain that no innovation or imagination was added, I might as well buy the good old loved cars themselves to have a genuine one of them instead, and not a modern copy.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
All in all it felt heartfelt this year as it was really mostly asian games all around. Kinda says a ton about western game development. Was just one category where they put up Outlaws and Veilguard, otherwise it was completely fine. Game of the year was basically a bunch of asian games also.
I do find it questionable that astrobot won game of the year though. Not that i believe it was Sony money or anything, and it's undoubtedly a good game. But better than Black myth, Final fantasy and Metaphor? I really fucking doubt it
Everyone is saying it's rigged thats why Astrobot won, a game literally nobody outside the most devout sonyponies played. So it is HIGHLY suspicious to say the least.
To me it just looks like another game that would come free with a PSN subscription.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Linear games for example were since all times docked points by just the nature of being linear and having less options compared to the idea of having choice instead of having none. It doesnt matter that it was 1995.
- just stop this line of thinking ffs
) and Elden Ring for instance was a very pleasant AAA exception, but this is an industry that in my opinion has objectively reached its saturation point and has unfortunately taken a direction that to me feels like a missed opportunity more than anything else.
) were playing it safe and made such "risk-free" sequels and even if they were great games they were still not groundbreaking and lacking creativity (yes, I am sure people now will say the opposite).
