Thinking about quitting gaming

Warning, rather jaded, depressing post follows.

So I've had this thought a few times in the past few years. Gaming sucks right now. I've mainly been a PC gamer since the early 90's, and I've seen the highs and lows, seen a lot of good and bad games come down the pike. It's with the biggest irony that I'm posting this in a gaming subforum on a site dedicated to a specific PC game series. :sweatdrop:

From my perspective, I'm tired of the very real "dumbing down" of gaming. I'm sick of seeing every single last dev house cranking out games that cater to the lowest common IQ, and to people and kids who want a "quick fix". Sick of seeing games designed mainly for the console and a joypad, and then a halfarsed port to the PC that clearly shows absolute minimal effort on the porting team's behalf. Sick of games released with more and more huge and game breaking bugs, then half-hearted efforts to fix, if they're even fixed at all. I'm sick of seeing "community managers" who's jobs are to stifle dissent, "manage" the gamers, and spew propaganda instead of interact with the fans. Sick of crappy minigames, horrible AI, too much emphasis on graphics, bullet-time, misuse of genre types (RPG), subscription based gaming and MMOs, you name it.

There are a number of games that have recently been released which I had high hopes for and they turned out to be utterly boring, uninspired, and have zero depth and almost no originality. Bioshock is one, it is nothing like the old hybrid FPS/RPG's of yore that it was hyped up to be a successor to. The only thing it's got going for it is a semi-original setting. Hellgate London turned out to be an MMO in disguise, with incredibly repetitive and boring gameplay on top of the fact that you have to pay $10/mo to actually get the REAL (full) game. Jericho is a title unworthy of being associated with Clive and it's predecssor, Undying. Incredibly stupid party and monster AI coupled with (yet again) crappy controls on the PC equal a recipe for boredom.

It's not only these recent games but over the past 2-3 years or so that it's taken the real downhill plunge for me. I guess the main two areas that it's hitting me is in the RPG and flight sim market. Bethesda has decided they want to make fantasy FPS's now instead of RPG's... Meh, ok.
NWN2 was more of an arcade game than a D20 platform in my experience. And as for flight sims, IL-2 and LOMAC are the only two real honest to god sims with little to no arcadishness, and the 'fixed' version of LOMAC (Flaming Cliffs) is infested with Starforce. Even CA is going the route of pleasing AD&D kiddies in making their games more arcadish, non-stop fast-paced action games as opposed to reasonably challenging and enjoyable TB/RTS's.

So it comes down to it. I'm realy thinking about just quitting cold turkey. The lack of depth and complexity, crappy DRM, shoddy support, etc etc etc has really taken it's toll on me. I'm 28 years old, if I am a dinosaur relic of a (as I see it) so called "golden age" of gaming that's passed and will not be returning, then so be it. I have a family to spend time with, a career that needs a boost, and friends to spend time with. It seems like a no brainer at this point.

I'd be curious if any other working (post high-school and/or college) folks have been at this point and what their thoughts are...

Edit - removed something I shouldn't be talking about.

It is become way better imho, the fine stuff is still to be found and there is much more entertainement. If you want to go beyond the package there are mods, made by fanatics for fanatics, that is a great, I am a huge Thief fan and still play it today because of the fanwork. Seems like people have a problem mainstream entering their private little space, I am in gaming heaven.

I've been thinking similar things Whacker but I believe there are still some good games out there, it just takes longer from good game to good game nowadays.

Do it. The same thing happened to me with comic books. Lack of interest and money (which only made the decision easier) forced me out. Keep and love the old stuff and try not to pay attention to the new.

Of course, Whacker, gaming today may be seen that way, but it depends what you're expecting of gaming. If you get enjoyment from a game for a reasonable period, then I think the game has done what it set out to do. There are plenty of pretty good games out there, it depends what kind you want. I like RPGs, so I play KotOR; I like Strategy, so I play Dawn of War... Not overly complicated, but which take some skill to play.
I'm just saying, don't quit gaming completely. Would be a shame... Just give it less time, and choose a game which is interesting to you. Better yet, replay the old classics.

Good points Whacker and I'd have to agree.

Still, hanging onto some old games and the few jewels in the haystack that still come out once in a while may just be enough. Part-time gaming isn't too bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warmaster Horus

Of course, Whacker, gaming today may be seen that way, but it depends what you're expecting of gaming. If you get enjoyment from a game for a reasonable period, then I think the game has done what it set out to do.

---

Agree, the problem is that I'm NOT enjoying any of the new games, hence why I'm really going down this route. If one asked me what my GOTY is for '07, I'm at a complete loss. Honestly I'd have to say it's probably Vampire Bloodlines........

Quote:

---

There are plenty of pretty good games out there, it depends what kind you want. I like RPGs, so I play KotOR; I like Strategy, so I play Dawn of War... Not overly complicated, but which take some skill to play.

---

Yes there are tons of good games out there, they're all just very old and I've played the crap out of them. I just got done playing KOTOR1 and SS2 a few months back, and Deus Ex and Fallout 1 and 2 earlier this year.

Quote:

---

I'm just saying, don't quit gaming completely. Would be a shame... Just give it less time, and choose a game which is interesting to you. Better yet, replay the old classics.

---

Again agree, but my problem is that I've just about burnt out all my old favorites, and nothing new interests me at all. Thanks for the kind words though.

https://img129.imageshack.us/img129/...1532081mg9.jpg

Bah, if you're so disenchanted with the PC gaming industry stop with the commercial games that seem to be upsetting you so and look to indie gaming. There's are games available that you don't even have to pay for out there that have tons more character than a lot of the soulless crapfests that are being put out by the big publishers right now. The breadth and depth of low to no cost gaming (not associated with the big publishers/devs) out there to keep anyone busy for a long time. There's just too much emphasis currently put on pretty games with wow factor, that end up being shallow once you get passed the shiny stuff.

Incidentally, I don't completely agree that there are no good commercial games out there on the PC. Witcher and TF2 (which I know you won't touch) are both great PC games that I'm currently enjoying. M&B is also a perennial favorite. :yes:

So can I have all your old games Whacker? :laugh4:

Seriously, no need to quit. I think you need to think outside of your normal comfort zone and try something you havent before.

Take Command 2nd Manassas is a gem and challenging. You think your a compentent general? Good luck against Jackson. There are a few good mods for it too.

My thoughts on your situation are that you should quit playing games. Clearly you are not enjoying them, so they're just a waste of money. It seems like a pretty simple decision to me. This is not a life-altering decision, it's just a choice not to buy games because you don't like them. It's no different than not buying a book you're not interested in or not watching a television program that you find boring. This is not divorce we're talking about, nor it is something traumatically difficult like breaking a substance addiction.

My personal opinion is that we're at a transition phase for gaming. Over the past 10 years, gaming has started going from a children's pastime to an adult pastime. You only need to look at the curve on the average age of gamers to see that. The gaming industry has simply exploded with the advent of console gaming for adults. There is far, far more money in it now than there ever has been since the genre was created. Thus, you have a large number of corporations that are jockeying for position in a very lucrative market that is likely to equal, if not surpass, the television and film industries for profit and market share.

When these kinds of industry booms occur, the very nature of the product tends to shift dramatically. No one really knows where the industry will end up, so they start firing out products like random, hoping to find the next big hit before their competitors do. When a success is found, the companies dogpile on it to make as much money as possible until the 'fad' wears off. When it does, they move on to whatever else has been found to be profitable since then. This results in many low-quality games, designed to focus on a few 'new' aspects in an attempt to test the marketability of the concept, followed by boatloads of cookie-cutter games that mimic the successes from the first part.

This is not a permanent situation. Eventually the gamer base will level off, the competitors will get used to their market, and the consumers themselves will become more discerning. This is especially true of the console market, which is increasingly turning into a PC market. Console players want to be able to download mods, install tons of patches, and generally make their games more than they are from just a plain vanilla install. For this reason alone, consoles that allow this will be more successful in the future and eventually consoles will become nothing more than pre-assembled gaming PCs. Stick a wireless keyboard and mouse on your coffee table, and no one will know the difference.

With this increase in consumer demand for more flexibility from the console market will come a greater demand for quality PC gaming. Smaller developers with 'niche' ideas will become more profitable and innovation, rather than cloning, will be rewarded by the market. This exact trend can be seen in the history of television and film entertainment. Both industries were originally small markets where hordes of independent groups made whatever programming they felt like making. There was a great deal of development and experimentation that really created the basis of the industry that we have today. These original pioneers showed the public what these new forms of entertainment had to offer and go the consumers interested in them. As they public got more interested, they started spending more money, resulting in higher profits. Then the less successful companies began getting bought out by more successful ones, and eventually you had a handful of major network broadcasters and movie studios who owned everything and controlled everything. With this concentration of control in a small number of hands, innovation took a back seat, as the producers concentrated on formulas they knew would sell.

Jump ahead to modern times, and you see all of that dissolving. Consumers became tired of the limited, staid choices offered by the networks and movie studios and began looking elsewhere. Today there are a vast number of television stations that cater to smaller segments of the market. The total amount of specialty programming has increased and people are now often able to get exactly the kind of shows they want to watch, whenever they want to watch them.

Consumers also started becoming tired of the formulaic Hollywood blockbuster. Box office sales began declining dramatically and many major studios are having financial problems. At the same time, independent movies are doing huge business, far outperforming their mega-budget brethren. They may not make as much money per movie, but due to their lower cost, they are far more likely to return a profit. This has encouraged many actors and directors to split from the major studios and do new and innovative work. The studios themselves have recognized this and now each major producer has their own 'independent film branch' which is responsible for scouting out new talent and distributing their works for a cut of the profits.

The gaming industry is going through this exact same transition. It's natural and it's impossible for any successful industry to avoid. Eventually, gaming will complete its move from a niche market to a mainstream market, and the quality and diversity will quickly start to re-emerge. I suspect it will happen far faster than it did for television and film as well. Both of those markets had technical and market constraints that made it exceedingly difficult for small companies to survive. For television, cable eliminated the major entry hurdle (broadcast bandwidth) and for film, digital cameras and computers eliminated the major entry hurdle (equipment and studio expenses). That is not an issue for the gaming industry, as there are few, if any barriers to entry. The internet itself guarantees access to all, no matter how low the budget. Once the console gain internet access comparable to PCs, the barrier is down and the flood of independent gaming will revive. As we've seen with the 360 and PS3, that time is not far off.

If you want to bow out until then, that is your decision to make. Personally, even with the lack of variety in gaming, I am still having a lot of fun. Yes, I may have to buy twice the number of games to get the same number of entertainment hours, but it's still worth the money in my book. I look forward to the days when 'independent' gaming resumes its former glory, like it has in television and film, but until then I will keep playing and buying as long as I have fun doing so.

There's always Mafia.

If you don't enjoy it, don't do it. gaming is supposed to be fun. Taking a break for a few years means you have a huge back catalogue of games to play if you ever decide to start playing again.

As for not that much good games being mùade anymore, I don't agree, I think it depends on the timeframe (what is recent) and the platforms you're considering (God bless the DS !).

I'm sort of in the same boat; I've been increasingly disenchanted with most modern games. For example, Bioshock's gameplay was deeply flawed in my opinion, and its saving graces - story and setting - did not do enough to lift it into classic status in my eyes. More than that, the driving force to finish it was to see how the story would end instead of its actual gameplay as it should have been.

I have a couple of theories. First, I believe gameplay matters more as one gains more gaming experience and in general consumes more entertainment. There are good stories, art and atmosphere elsewhere - only "gameplay" is unique to games. And, when you look back, actual gameplay innovations are fewer and far between these days, at least on the PC. Sure, there may be refinement of concepts and all sorts of rehashing and remixing with a couple new spices, but it is increasingly harder to break new ground.

Another theory has to do with difficulty, which also ties into gameplay. Modern games are expensive products that are meant to be consumed from start to finish, and for this reason their difficulty tends to cater to a low denominator. Again, Bioshock is a good example of this; it rides so completely on its story that actual gameplay elements are (most likely intentionally) almost meaningless. I'd argue that anyone with half a brain and some persistence will manage to finish it, no matter how new they are to gaming. There's no danger involved. To me, it seems like the developers wanted all players to be able to finish the game at any cost. In this case, the cost was so high that it almost makes Bioshock a non-game (it's just an "interactive story.")

Time constraints are probably another reason why gaming tends to interest less as commitments increase. Most games are relatively long when compared to other forms of entertainment, even books. Most of this length has little to do with story, it's just "padding" like fights, exploration, minigames. If that "padding" is not compelling, the game feels like a waste of time or, even worse, work. (Amusingly, what people these days call "padding" is pretty much the essence of the game.) As I speculated in the second paragraph, it's possible that once one gets more gaming experience under one's belt, it is less likely that a new game manages to impress with its gameplay, and since the majority of the content is not compelling, one probably gravitates toward more compact entertainment. NWN2 is a good example of how unoriginal and repetitive gameplay killed the entire game for me.

Personally, I still play games, however single player games take much less of my time these days. Multiplayer gaming in games that actually have good gameplay is where it's at for me. This includes both computer and board games. Modern, german-type board games are fine entertainment for any gamer who can find a few real-life people to play with, and board games are still a bit more mainstream entertainment than multiplayer computer games. Multiplayer computer games can take a bit more effort to get going, but can be worth it in a group of like-minded people.

EDIT: TinCow raises some very good points. However, I'd like to contend that the "quality" of games is ultimately dependant on gameplay; aesthetics and even story are secondary. Since the pace of gameplay innovation has diminished very dramatically over the period of computer gaming, even indie gaming, it's possible that we're not going to see a dramatic resurgence of new innovation despite changes in the market. The quality games of tomorrow will most likely be well done recombinations of old formats, with very few true innovations thrown into the mix. Due to the nature of games, new games will be increasingly less appealing to longtime gaming hobbyists because most of the core mechanics will remain the same.

Here's a link to one list of innovations in gaming. You'll notice that the vast majority are from the 80's or 90's; only a couple are from this millennium. (Number 13: Reversible Time is wrong; The Killing Game Show had Reversible time, in the form of a replay, and was released in 1990)

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?op...1&limitstart=0

Whacker: From what I can tell from your post, I think quitting gaming for a while for you is a good idea. The less you play now, the more you have later when you would feel fun again.

I'd have to agree with you though, few of the newest games interest me. I'm not bitter or bored playing the games I like, and I've yet to really burn out; but I don't feel the joyous need to go out and play everything on the market like in the old days. Tincow's post is a great explanation I'm prepared to accept. PC gaming is really dry to me right now. It all seems so...corporate

If you feel jaded, then usually it's time to move on. Not forever, mind you, that's one sad misconception about moving on away from hobbies -- when you rediscover them some months or years later then at least a measure of freshness will return to the old games played to the umpteenth time in your "draught" times, and if your wait is longer than most then when you return you might find you'll have to catch up on a lot of cool stuff: with the same great variety of experiences that newbies get when they catch up to the seemingly enormous offerings of a "new" hobby they enter into.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichigo

https://img129.imageshack.us/img129/...1532081mg9.jpg

---

Oh, come on, Ichigo. That picture doesn't even fit the thread's tone or topic direction.

I mean, jeez, those pictures are supposed to give extra effect to relevant punchlines, not randomly used without, hm, class. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Oh, come on, Ichigo. That picture doesn't even fit the thread's tone or topic direction.

I mean, jeez, those pictures are supposed to give extra effect to relevant punchlines, not randomly used without, hm, class. ~;)

---

I thought it did. Kittens cannot save this thread from Whacker's depression. :laugh4:

There was a point several years back, around the time I was leaving university, where I found I barely played games at all, and didn't much enjoy them when I did. So I stopped - the whole point is to have fun. I focused on my reading and on my budding writing skills. About 8 or 9 months later a new game appealed to me, can't actually recall what or why. I decided to risk it. Long story short, I am still playing and having a good time.

Quit. You may return, you may not. Either way you will likely be happier.

I found a helpful web site:

Possible Warning Signs

Recognize the Signs of Depression and Possible Game Quitting Risk

• Talking About Quitting Gaming-- any mention of spamming, laming, TKing, or other types of game-ending activities
• Recent Loss -- through merger, bankruptcy, death by sequels, purchase or bad design
• Change in Personality -- sad, withdrawn, irritable, anxious, tired, indecisive, apathetic
• Change in Behavior -- can't concentrate on RPGs, strategy games, FPS, doesn't care where the BFG spawns
• Change in Sleep Patterns -- restfulness, lack of sleep deprivation, pays attention to family
• Change in Eating Habits -- loss of appetite and weight, or overeating
• Fear of losing control -- cannot properly use gamepad or mouse/keyboard combo
• Low self esteem -- feeling worthless, shame, overwhelming guilt, self-hatred, "Azeroth would be better off without me"
• No hope for the future -- believing things will never get better; that nothing will ever change

I haven't been thinking about quitting all gaming, but I have been extremely disappointed with recent games and the push to dumb down for consoles. My gaming time is limited anyway, I wish to spend the time on quality if I am going to put forth the effort at all. I still have a decent amount of older games that I can and still do play, so I don't really care too much at the moment about today's crap games (and the hurdles and pitfalls of the DRM stuck on them). So I just haven't been buying new games.

The best part about my situation is that I can finally make a break from Microsoft. I have a collection of old PCs, with Win98 and XP, that can play the classics, a decent XP machine in the works for newer titles I deem acceptable. I will make this dual-boot with Linux, and I'm done with Redmond. If you don't game, you don't need M$. ~:wave:

@ Lemur - TKing is only funny until one of your friends gets mad. Then it gets really funny.


I thank all for their kind words and advise, I think it's time to call it quits for awhile. Will probably try again around xmas time, seeing how I asked for MSFSX and some rudder pedals, but other than that, it's time to give some attention to other things in life.

Given some responses I feel I didn't convey this well enough, but gaming is and has been a big part of my life. Easily 20, 30+ hours a week, so this is definitely a major change. Gotta find another hobby now it seems. Always wanted to pick up some other bad habits, like farting in crowded elevators...

Cheers to all

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Given some responses I feel I didn't convey this well enough, but gaming is and has been a big part of my life. Easily 20, 30+ hours a week, so this is definitely a major change. Gotta find another hobby now it seems. Always wanted to pick up some other bad habits, like farting in crowded elevators...

Cheers to all

:balloon2:

---

Okay Whacker I posted a smart !@# reply so I'll be serious. Here are 3 things that can consume 10 hours a week and substitute the gaming hobby.

1. Aikido: just do a web search there is plenty on there, sparring is fun its better then a video game.

2. Bikram Yoga: I do this twice a week now. Do you think your in shape? Try this then. Do you want to get in shape? I challenge you to do 5 classes over 2 weeks.

3. Models ! Kids stuff? Yeah maybe but you know what? There are some pretty cool model kits out there and given your gaming history maybe you could make a scale of the tower of london? Also good to do with the kids if they are old enough.

You Whacker are a solid guy, I enjoy your posts and chatting with you on IRC. If you must take a break so be it, but should you come back how about reducing the time invested and taking up one of the 3 I listed? Maybe something else?

I already quit longtime. Do the same, Whacker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Given some responses I feel I didn't convey this well enough, but gaming is and has been a big part of my life. Easily 20, 30+ hours a week, so this is definitely a major change.

---

No wonder you got tired of it.

I gave up tv years ago for similar reasons and never looked back. Who needs tv? I am a journalist, for god's sake, and even I never miss an issue or story on behalf of my tv aversion. But in the ever expanding gaming universe I feel there is enough fun to be had for a lifetime.

I share your disappointment over the terrible quality of after sales, fixes and fan-base comitment of today's great distributors. As for the rest of your complaints, sorry, I think you just suffer from overload. Go cold turkey for a year, then switch on one of your all-time favourites.

Oh, and don't expect the highest intellectual satisfaction from a buncha pixels, please.

*Logs into Wolfteam. Rarata!! Headshot! "Baby Wolf! :skull: :laugh4: *

I get this feeling sometimes then switch back to PnP RGPs...

Then when I have had enough of other people and switch back to some good SP gaming...

Then branch back to MP...

It is a cyclic thing really...

One thing doesn't change though, I am a gamer at heart, the gaming does not go away. It is just the medium changes to keep things fresh...

I don't whatch TV very much becuase the lack of interactivity loses my interest. I only like TV or films with a particularly good story, I don't watch it just to pass time...

So is it gaming you want to give up (focusing your life on more "serious" and "real" persuits) or is it just PC/Console gaming you are feed up with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

I already quit longtime. Do the same, Whacker.

---

Simple and honest question, if this is the case why stay on a PC game forum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob the Insane

Simple and honest question, if this is the case why stay on a PC game forum?

---

The camaraderie. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

The camaraderie. :laugh4:

---

~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

I already quit longtime. Do the same, Whacker.

---

Ditto, more out of lack of oppurtunity than a conscious decision. In hindsight, it's one of the more worthwhile moves I've made, freeing a lot of time for new interests and neglected older ones, all without feeling like I'm really missing something. Same with internet, though to a lesser degree.

20-30 hours does sound like a lot. I know games can be time consuming, but if you're not enjoying that time I can imagine thinking about spending it on something more worthwhile. At the very least, if you are to continue gaming, do adjust your expectations of new games and purchase/play accordingly.

Due to my move to Australia i've had to involuntarily give up gaming, and i have to say it sucks. Hard. Due to the situation i'm in there isn't much i can do with all this free time either. You can only spend so many hours a day wandering around the city looking for shops with 'help wanted' signs in the window.

Thank god my computer and games will arrive at the beginning of February. Until then i've only got the option of playing Counter-strike, BF1942 and the new surprise that is (well, new to me) Starcraft at a local internet place, but all this costs $3 an hour, so gaming is now a luxury i can only afford to do once a week, if that.

I completly understand what you mean. There are hardly any good games coming out for the PC. It seems that the gaming industry is all about console gaming now. Seriously, I have been playing MTW 2 since the day it came out, and man, am I bored of it. And if you want to know how bad it is I'm still playing Warcraft 3 and thats been out since 2004, now thats sad.

I have one recommendation.

TRY CONSOLE GAMES. There not that bad, I used to hate console games and only played PC games, but my grandfather got me a PS3. And wow, some of the games can be really really fun. There's lots of games out there that are slow paced, and hard, and with good AI for the console.

Trust me give it a try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

If one asked me what my GOTY is for '07, I'm at a complete loss. Honestly I'd have to say it's probably Vampire Bloodlines........

Yes there are tons of good games out there, they're all just very old and I've played the crap out of them. I just got done playing KOTOR1 and SS2 a few months back, and Deus Ex and Fallout 1 and 2 earlier this year.

---

I share your taste in older games - you are mentioning 5 out of my top 10 ever games in one sentence - but I am not convinced that gaming has declined dramatically since then.

Vampire Bloodlines is right up there with the Fallouts, in my opinion. Many similar virtues in terms of atmosphere, character and originality of sidequests etc. But benefiting from the rather astounding computer graphics of recent years. I'm very miffed that Troika went under for it.

KOTOR1 was excellent, but it seems from reports that Mass Effect is roughly comparable. (I'll have to wait a while for the PC release to find out for myself). Even Jade Empire - an underrated CRPG - kept my faith in Bioware strong. I disagree with you about the Obsidian offerings, NWN2 and KOTOR2, and found them very good offerings.

Yes, Bioshock and Invisible War were let downs after SS2 and Deus Ex, but I suspect we will see great things in those kind of RPG/FPS hybrids in future. Stalker was a pretty close near miss. Like Morrowind/Oblivion, it creates a pretty amazing gameworld. It just needs a bit more of a game to fit into it. On the more "action" side of the spectrum, Max Payne 2 and Mafia provided very immersive story based experiences.

One strategy game that has kept up my faith in computer games is Civ4. IMO, this keeps everything good about Civ2 and then adds lots more goodness. It's harder than Civ2 and also more flavoursome, in terms of little touches and fun gameplay.

I'm also getting a sense that hardcore wargames are making something of a comeback from independent designers - Matrix Games, Ageod etc - although as yet I have not managed to wean myself of the lighter genres of RPGs and TW to get back into the hardstuff.

I barely play games anymore to be honest. The increasing drive for graphics at the expense of gameplay and the prevalence of console based games kills most of the fun for me. The only new game I've truly enjoyed recently is probably Supreme Commander. I'd prefer to play Deus Ex than any of the similar games released in the last five years.

The gaming industry is moving on, from effectively small target groups to a large mainstream. This is good for the industry (maybe?), but bad for the originally focused groups. Games are a lot more about the intial wow factor now, in order to get the sales out rather than catering to people who will play it to the extreme.

Look at the TW games. R:TW was the major turning point and it got worse from then on - effectively CA focused more on easy to play battles that look good, rather than hyper intensive battles that required skill. A majority proportion of the gaming population completely suck at games and this proportion is rising. Game developers and publishers understand this and so refuse to alienate that proportion by throwing the fact that htey suck back in their face. Older games could get away with it, because games were more nichey and less mainstream, ie. they catered to people who could play them with a reasonable level of skill. Now however, you have to make a game that a guy with 80 points of IQ can easily win, or else you lose sales. Guess what? They make games like that and because they can no longer compete on gameplay, it gets to be a battle of image quality.
:thumbsdown:

A question to all who claim the games are getting worse:

Are games really getting worse or is it you who changes?

I bought my first computer(C64) when I was 11 years old. Today I am 32. It is impossible for me too see the games(and many other things) as I was seeing them when I was 11.

Good point, Komutan. But there are other aspects. Good Games in the C64 era could be developed by a one or two man team in a garage who were able to persue their "vision" of the game, nothing had to watered down due to time constraints, contract deadlines with publishers etc. Games from gamers for gamers, you could feel the heart that has been put into. The only limits were the limits of the given platform and being innovative didnt cost much. And we´ve been much more used to abstractions, visuals didnt count for much anyway. The gameplay and "feel" was what counted.

For example, if you were to develop a true succesor to the C64 Pirates! that has the gameplay and the atmosphere of his predecessor and pleases the "old" fans out there, you´d have to do:

- decide wether you want a really realistic approach (prolly good for the older
fans, meaning a lot of more work and lower sale numbers) or a rather
"cartoonish" one for the younger audience (less work but higher sales)

- a 3d engine that is fully capable of representing a strategic map,
seabattles ( at least on the level of PotC), landbattles and sieges (TW), fights in first/third person
view (Mount&Blade) realisticly,

- an AI and physics engine that is able to handle all four,

- a plot or storyline that is believeable (that means a lot of historcal research)

To be able to do this you´d need at least a 30-50 man team, a budget of 40 million dollars and a very understanding publishers when it comes to deadlines.
No wonder Sid Meyer made just a graphical enhanced C64 Pirates! two years ago ~D

Butthis is where modifications come into play (a point that has been neglected so far in this discussion, i think). For example, the Build Mod for PotC is the best pirate game ever made in my opinion (sadly, its pretty unknown, too), combining many of the features of Sea Dogs, Uncharted Waters, Pirates etc. and capturing the overall theme perfectly. Why? Because its, again, made from gamers for gamers (on a second note, it should better read:
from adult gamers for adult gamers ^^).

So, to come to a conclusion, is PC gaming today rather dead for a more demading audience? Pretty much. But thankfully, the more demanding audience is able to mod a game we like into something we can love and play for years, without modifications i would probably have quitted pc gaming when i was 18 or 19.


P.S. Sorry for my bad english

Yes, but the original game has to be good enough for the mods to at all be created. Nobody would make a mod for a game if that game isn't bought in the first place by the modders. Mods also have less reliability among users in general (even though so far afaik none of the major mods released in the history of gaming have contained malicious stuff), and the majority of players of a particular game don't install any of the major mods for it if I'm not mistaken. This means that multiplayer becomes rare or almost non-existent for any modded games (except CS, but CS is crap *dives for cover as angry CS fans open fire* ), meaning that if the unmodded multiplayer is bad, there's often little or no chance of better mp.

Anyway, I think the customers bear as much responsibility as the big, evil producers in this case. Sure the big evil producers tell their developers to dumb down their games, but that is because the buyers not often buy the great games in high enough quantities, but instead only buy the "big names". Who here can for example honestly say they completely forgot about buying Quake III, Half-life II, Halo II, Bioshock and Crysis, but instead bought Operation Flashpoint and Vampire Bloodlines? Well, I can - almost - but not quite. The temptation of buying the big names is often too great, and the chance of finding the truly great stuff is small. I think it goes like this: the great titles aren't discovered until after the price drop (from 39 to 19 USD), whereas only the big names, due to the type, manage to acquire huge sells in the important first months when the price is still 39 USD. That, and the kids who want simple games, and the fact that even the "experienced gamers" go "OMG Crysis" instead of "OMG Operation Flashpoint", and that graphically impressive games are easier to hype up in the marketing. Who can efficiently market great AI? Only way to do it is by releasing some tech videos, but what do you think the player will do then? "OMG those graphics suxx"... No, the behavior of the customers is also to blame for the decreasing quality. The producers are not entirely wrong when they say a dumbed down game will grant more revenues, because most of the time it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

Who here can for example honestly say they completely forgot about buying Quake III, Half-life II, Halo II, Bioshock and Crysis,

---

I can, more or less.

---

And about mods: they are irrelevant; what matters is the original game in question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Komutan

A question to all who claim tha games are getting worse:

Are games really getting worse or is it you who changes?

I bought my first computer(C64) when I was 11 years old. Today I am 32. It is impossible for me too see the games(and many other things) as I was seeing them when I was 11.

---

I've thought about this, and obviously things change as a person gets older. You get a little more patient, you appreciate deeper storylines, and yeah... your reflexes degrade. But I think it's mostly the games that have changed (talking specifically about PC games here).

I've been playing since the beginning, starting with Flight Simulator running off a floppy disk in glorious 4-color CGA graphics. I've played most of the "big" PC titles over the years including shooters like Doom/Quake, RPG's like Baldur's Gate, strategy games like Civ, although the focus has always been on tactical combat sims (planes, subs, etc.) which is a dying market now. So that's one thing that's changed. First person shooters have somehow taken over the niche that used to be occupied by flight sims.

One reason may be a change in PC gaming demographics. In the early days of PC gaming, computers weren't ubiquitous household appliances like they are now. The audience was older, on average, and computers were very expensive, not the $500 boxes you can buy today. The Dad in the house used the PC that doubled for home finances and word processing to fly a combat flight sim, or play a mature, well-written RPG like Baldur's Gate at night, while his kids were out in the living room with a game console hooked up to the TV. Kids just weren't allowed much time on Dad's expensive computer

These days, that's all changed. Now every kid has his or her own computer, at least most places in the developed world targeted by game companies. I think this has affected the marketing and the survivability of older genres like tactical combat sims, and shifted the focus more towards visual flash and shorter attention spans. It's the reason for the "dumbing down" of titles like Total War, and the reason why a game like Bioshock, which had great potential, turned out to be basically a very pretty shooter and nothing more. Any game with very high production costs has to be targeted to a 12 year old and up demographic, instead of the 30+ year-olds who used to be the only people playing home computer games. Even that phrase "home computer" is something of an anachronism, from the days when that was a fairly rare thing.

There are a few games that appeal to the older-than-30 crowd out there, but they're niche critters like Silent Hunter 4, MS Flight Sim, the Civ series, Galactic Civilizations 2, etc. I'm thankful that at least a few games like that are still around, for geezers like me.

Oh yeah, and get off my lawn, you kids!
:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

From my perspective, I'm tired of the very real "dumbing down" of gaming. I'm sick of seeing every single last dev house cranking out games that cater to the lowest common IQ, and to people and kids who want a "quick fix". Sick of seeing games designed mainly for the console and a joypad, and then a halfarsed port to the PC that clearly shows absolute minimal effort on the porting team's behalf. Sick of games released with more and more huge and game breaking bugs, then half-hearted efforts to fix, if they're even fixed at all. I'm sick of seeing "community managers" who's jobs are to stifle dissent, "manage" the gamers, and spew propaganda instead of interact with the fans. Sick of crappy minigames, horrible AI, too much emphasis on graphics, bullet-time, misuse of genre types (RPG), subscription based gaming and MMOs, you name it.

---

I know what you mean. Nowadays I only play the occasional bit of TW. I'm pretty much sick of games in the same way I'm sick of modern movies for their cliches, poor plots, non existent character development and over emphasis of CGI effects.

With games we have formulaic, dumbed down, linear, eye candy fests with almost non existent AI, multiple bugs and intrusive copy protection. Instead of feeling like the valued game player that actually pays these peoples' salaries, you're made to feel as if they're doing you a massive favour by even letting you buy the game in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Komutan

Are games really getting worse or is it you who changes?

---

I still play Deus Ex, Medieval: Total War, Baldurs Gate series, Alpha Centauri, Planescape Torment etc. reasonably regularly and enjoy them just as much (and I still find new things in them). In my opinion games are getting worse.

Give the mentioned games to the average new gamer today and they will not enjoy them because they aren't pretty enough and will all turn around and smack you in the face if you are bad at them. My appreciation of games hasn't changed, the target market segment has moved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Productivity

Planescape Torment

---

I'm playing it right now. :beam:

The two things Planescape: Torment has going for it are top-notch storytelling and a sense of grotesque atmosphere that simply cannot be matched.

Usually "grotesque" in just about all games ever made before and after Torment translates into "eww, disgusting" or "zomg scary!" Torment simply took the whole thing to a different angle and made playing as an ugly zombie in a world full of trash, fiends, and corpses epic.

The storytelling has its own internal logic -- something crucial to create a sense of fantasy, IMO -- and yet remains very smart. One could simply compare Dak'kon to Zhjaeve from NWN2 to see which one makes for a more compelling "alien" character.

But enough of my digression, my one and only point on this post related to the thread actually has little to do with Torment, but this: I think one must remember that, like music, old games have a way of sorting out the classics from the junk. I'm sure ten years from now I'll still be here complaining about the junks being spewed out into the market and looked back to 2007 with nostalgia.

Welps... So far, this has been ... interesting, not a bit painful perhaps, and good for me. Shortly after I made the initial cranky emo post that started this thread, I uninstalled the few remaining games on my PC. Cold turkey.

It does feel wierd. Really does make me realize how much time I've spent gaming all my life. I had a good conversation with proletariat, kongamato, and a few others in the channel, who had some good counterview and thoughts... In my mind, it is particularly interesting that it's taken me a full 20+ years to get really burnt out and sick of it like this.

@ Tincow - I appreciate you comments and sentiments. Only thing I would add is that I don't necessarily agree that the industry is headed back towards niche-style gaming with more specifically targeted audiences. If anything, I think it's heading more and more down the Dark Path (that will forever dominate it's destiny?) of mass marketing and generalization. Perhaps someday it make take a swing back, your example was good, but I have my doubts. In a way I hope you are right, and it does swing back sooner.

@ Econ - Likewise, I appreciate your comments, I think it just boils down the point where we have to agree to disagree like gentlemen. The one thing I would offer is that perhaps your tastes and... "standards", for lack of a better term, have changed over time, I know you also have a younger son. It's hard to be objective, but I do not think that my personal tastes and whatnaught have changed over time, thus what has slowly built up to this point in my life. /shrug

@ Caravel and others - Glad to know I'm not the only cranky old fart around here! :laugh4:

@ Odin - You my friend are a bum. :clown:

I do plan on sticking around here, though perhaps not online/active as much, for the exact reason that Antiochus pointed out. You guys by and large are a good lot (except for that Odin guy!), and I do enjoy chatting/arguing/debating/haranging you all.

Cheers
:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

I think one must remember that, like music, old games have a way of sorting out the classics from the junk. I'm sure ten years from now I'll still be here complaining about the junks being spewed out into the market and looked back to 2007 with nostalgia.

---

So I'm curious... what from say the last three years will you still want to play in 2012?

The quite brilliant Planescape Torment is quite arguably the underrated all out best game of those based on the Bioware infinity engine. Compared with Torment, Baldurs Gate is as dull as dishwater.

I agree about Planescape Torment, but to be fair it is so utterly bug-ridden that it makes M2TW look flawless by comparison.

I agree, though the unofficial patch fixed most bugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Productivity

So I'm curious... what from say the last three years will you still want to play in 2012?

---

I won't know until then. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Productivity

So I'm curious... what from say the last three years will you still want to play in 2012?

---

The question was not addressed to me, but it is such an interesting question, I'd like to provide my answer. For what it is worth, I suspect I will probably play Vampire Bloodlines and KOTOR2 five years down the line. I rate them as among the best games of all time.

Civ4 and M2TW could certainly be playable in 2012, although they may be replaced by future versions in the same series.

If mods count, I could see myself playing EB too.

And perhaps Mount and Blade.



For reference, some of the older games I keep coming back to now:

System Shock 2
Jagged Alliance 2
Panzer General 2
X-Com 1
Fallout 2
Baldurs Gate 2
Ghost Recon 1
Heroes of Might and Magic III
Imperialism 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

Who here can for example honestly say they completely forgot about buying Quake III, Half-life II, Halo II, Bioshock and Crysis, but instead bought Operation Flashpoint and Vampire Bloodlines?

---

Well, I bought the Orange Box last weekend so I'm almost guilty concerning HL2 but I don't have any of the others and neither do I have any of their predecessors, I did however buy Operation Flashpoint and it's addon.
To some degree I have always seen games as modelling the real world so I can play on the PC what I do not or can not do in reality, that's why most of the Quakes and UTs never really appealed to me, apart from the fact that I'm too slow. :beam:
There are, of course, exceptions and some games are just fun without being realistic in any way, my priorities have also shifted a bit, I've bought some games with only multiplayer in mind as well, if I had some really good friends playing Quake online everyday I might buy it.

That's concerning this part, about the overall quality of games and growing tired etc. I don't really have an opinion, I play what I want, like and can afford, often I'm hyped about a game at release but cannot afford it and later when I can afford it I feel I don't want to play it anymore, most recent case, World in Conflict and The Witcher. Maybe I'll get it one day, maybe not. :shrug:
Saves money. :dizzy2:

I for my part play around 4-5 hrs. a week in average these days. So playing is not taking that much time in my life. Oh, and i kinda really don´t know what is going on in the gaming community....Well, at least by now I know CS means counter strike & a lot of folks play it.....I only play the TW series games & mods. A big part of my other free time is used for reading [a lot of history books in the TW-relevant timeframes], hiking, sports, friends, gals, pubs, clubs, phtotgraphy, the movies & other staff.

Maybe in your case it would be cool to give the whole thing a bit less of your time & attention, find new staff to do & come back to gaming with a few other hobbies you love just as much.

Real life games like soccer kinda satisfy the "I wanna play/win!"-need actually better than another one of those "Average Victory!"-afternoons.

Anyways man, take care and thank god there is tons of things out there to do! Sub

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

Who here can for example honestly say they completely forgot about buying Quake III, Half-life II, Halo II, Bioshock and Crysis, but instead bought Operation Flashpoint and Vampire Bloodlines?

---

:raises hand: Well, mostly. I tried the Flashpoint demo and didn't like it; FPS aren't my thing. I waited with baited breath for my copy of Bloodlines to arrive shortly after release, only to find it unplayable due to random crashes. I do own Bioshock. Nothing to do with the name and the hype, more to do with the attempt to follow in the footsteps of System Shock 2 and Deus Ex. Wouldn't touch any Quake game with a barge pole, don't care in the least about Crysis, only own Half Life 2 because it's bundled into the Orange Box and I wanted a non-steam version of Portal, and the first Halo bored me silly when I rented it, reluctant to buy because I doubted the adoration heaped upon it.

The org isn't exactly your typical gaming community though, so your point still holds water. The people here are typically older, more mature, and more sceptical than places like gamefaqs. Ask the same question there and you'd get blank looks from most. Um, and then get called a troll. And be flamed.

In somewhat related news, it looks like video games will have their best selling year ever in 2007.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

In somewhat related news, it looks like video games will have their best selling year ever in 2007.

---

See I don't think that's surprising. Games have moved into a different target audience, one which is far larger so it makes sense that they would sell more. That doesn't mean that the games themselves are better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

I won't know until then. :beam:

---

You can be flippant all you like about it, but it hardly adds to the discussion. Everything that's ever stood out as a classic for me has been readily apparent at the time and judging by other responses it is hardly me who has this ability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Productivity

You can be flippant all you like about it, but it hardly adds to the discussion. Everything that's ever stood out as a classic for me has been readily apparent at the time and judging by other responses it is hardly me who has this ability.

---

Well, I was serious. I -won't- know until then.

5 years is a long time you know. I might move on, I might not. Some games I thought are way too complex might grow on me (say, Victoria, that piece of micromanagement nightmare); some action games might feel worse than it is today, etc.

In any case, econ21 has provided a few examples from the recent years I agree with.

I'll likely be playing Vampire: Bloodlines for quite some time for example. The game is certainly an excellent RPG on the same caliber as the best of the old Infinity Classics.

Civilization seems like a game that'll last very very long if you don't play it too much.

Or any of the Paradox games, more precisely EUIII.

Etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

Wouldn't touch any Quake game with a barge pole

---

The first quake game was very original and quite revoltionary for it's time in that it led to basically every FPS game that came afterwards and had quite an eerie and compelling atmosphere. The 2nd, 4th and later installments departed to the cliched "marines vs alien borg types" theme which for me was not as original or as interesting as the "slipgates between worlds" type scenario of the first game. The third is only good as a multiplayer game, and even then is quite cartoony and garish in it's attempts to recapture the atmosphere and gameplay of Q1. Another FPS game with great atmosphere was the first Unreal game. For it's time it's graphics were pretty amazing along with it's atmospherics, flora, fauna, landscapes, water and sound etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caravel

The first quake game was very original and quite revoltionary for it's time in that it led to basically every FPS game that came afterwards and had quite an eerie and compelling atmosphere. The 2nd, 4th and later installments departed to the cliched "marines vs alien borg types" theme which for me was not as original or as interesting as the "slipgates between worlds" type scenario of the first game. The third is only good as a multiplayer game, and even then is quite cartoony and garish in it's attempts to recapture the atmosphere and gameplay of Q1. Another FPS game with great atmosphere was the first Unreal game. For it's time it's graphics were pretty amazing along with it's atmospherics, flora, fauna, landscapes, water and sound etc.

---

FPS games I enjoy are incredibly rare, for the main part thanks to the fact I find shooting things dull and for the rest due to my utter inability to dodge effectively. Quake never managed to appeal to me sufficiently to try it. It couldn't be said to have the keen humour of the two no one lives forever games or the narrative of Dark Forces 2, to give two examples from the very small set of FPS I've liked. I know neither game is fully contemporary with Quake; I don't think I played any FPS that were. They're the oldest two I can summon to mind, with the exception of the original Dark Forces. I played that because it was Star Wars.

Unreal came closer to making me try a demo. Atmosphere is something I consider important in most types of games, and on occasion I will slog my way through a game type I don't enjoy as much simply for the atmosphere. Never did get around to it; it looked too much shooty-shooty-kill-kill-bang! for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caravel

The first quake game was very original and quite revoltionary for it's time in that it led to basically every FPS game that came afterwards and had quite an eerie and compelling atmosphere. The 2nd, 4th and later installments departed to the cliched "marines vs alien borg types" theme which for me was not as original or as interesting as the "slipgates between worlds" type scenario of the first game. The third is only good as a multiplayer game, and even then is quite cartoony and garish in it's attempts to recapture the atmosphere and gameplay of Q1. Another FPS game with great atmosphere was the first Unreal game. For it's time it's graphics were pretty amazing along with it's atmospherics, flora, fauna, landscapes, water and sound etc.

---

I'd agree largely with your sentiments, but I have a different overall view. In hindsight, I don't really prefer any one 'genre' of games, and have played just about all of them. That said, I do loves me a good FPS, but have really grown tired of them over the past few years because that's what about 80-90% of the newer games have boiled down to.

Regarding Quake, I've loved every single one of them, because I treat them as what they really are, and that is tech demos. Quake 1 was the only one that was well and truly revolutionary, as Caravel stated, it was the first true 3d shooter than set the stage for everything else. I mean seriously, how many games out nowadays are based on some version of the id Quake engines? Quake 2 was an experiment in advanced 3d, opengl and directx (even glide) which was finally starting to become worthwhile to program in. Quake 3 was proof that one could have dozens, hundreds almost of people playing on the same map, with a ton of eye candy, and very very little lag, the netcode was phenomenal (after the 3rd or 4th patch). Quake 4 was further revision and experimentation from the Doom3 project with near-photorealistic graphics, and proving that it can be done and still run well on reasonably old hardware. 99% of the people I saw complaining about how slow it was had hardware that was crap, and they should have known why they had bad performance.

Unreal is a different animal. Fully agree with Caravel, Unreal 1 was rather original for an FPS in it's time, and it was a good playthrough. Unreal Tournament was friggin' legendary, that and it's contemporary Quake 3 were equally enjoyable to play, and had their strengths. UT1 was better looking, but didn't scale nearly as well and was a bit harder to mod for, Quake 3 wasn't as good looking, but it scaled a hell of a lot better and the netcode was far more robust in our views. UT2k3 was a bit of a joke, UT2k4 was a decent revision in the series, but not really original, and still a bit hard to develop for as compared to id's engines and SDK's.

Bottom line, neither the Quake or Unreal series are deep at all, but they have served their purposes well, and provided for some good fun. I'd give the edge to the Quake series, mainly for the reasons I stated above. If one doesn't enjoy shooters, then it definitely makes sense why one would overlook those. If one does enjoy shooters I'd still suggest trying any/all of those, not only for some good gameplay but also for a bit of a direct look at how those games evolved over time. Plus there are numerous mods that can breathe some new life into them which are all worth playing.

My $0.02

:balloon2:

Whacker never would try a Paradox game. :shrug:

https://img149.imageshack.us/img149/...2769893bv2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Quake 1 was the only one that was well and truly revolutionary, as Caravel stated, it was the first true 3d shooter than set the stage for everything else.

---

That sounds a bit like no game can be revolutionary for you anymore without being 4D. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Doom3 project with near-photorealistic graphics

---

:laugh4:
That's got to be a joke. :laugh4:

That said I'm waiting for the final breakthrough of streaming engines after Half Life 2 would reload in every third tunnel(it was still a good game, mind you).
I'm talking about OFP and Gothic here, they're the games I know using streaming engines to have seamless big environments, since I haven't played Far Cry/Crysis I'm not sure whether they're streaming but I wouldn't be surprised if they are, they're also both closer to photorealism if you ask me. :shrug: