So I find myself quitting another new game (Oblivion) and browsing Abandonia for this afternoon's entertainment.

New games just don't compare to old. Please, tell me if it's true or maybe I'M just getting old...... (I'm 28).

Supporting evidence.
I played every nook and cranny of all the eps for Heroes of Might and Magic 3 but I can't be bothered finishing HOMM 5.
I loved Civ 2 and its eps but I've only played about 3 games of Civ 4.
The Longest Journey was way better than Dreamfall.
Nothing has ever compared to Ultima 7.
Quest for Glory 5 was great - how many years ago was that now?
Baldur's Gate 2 was so huge I still haven't finished TOB. (And I'm not sure my computer can play it any more.)

Is it so wrong to want a decent, story filled, probably 2D rpg or linear adventure? How about a new Ultima using the Baldur's Gate 2 engine? Or a HOMM sequel with nice flat graphics instead of cringeworthy 3D characters? And a Dreamfall sequel without cheesy little "arcade" sequences?

So tell me. Why did every Sierra and Origin game get infinitely better in sequels and whereas todays RPGs and adventures seem to be going backwards? Should I retire (after a very considerable gaming history) and get a shares portfolio to occupy my time? Anyone else feel the same or am I alone in my torment? - Planescape Torment, that is. Please reply!

I don't really know, but maybe it's just:
1. Time is money
2. New ideas takes time
3. New ideas means less money
and with the insane production costs these days, as opposed to the times when great games were made by 1, 2, maybe even 3 people... in their spare time, it's no wonder why modern games seems so lacking in uniqueness and freshness.

Relax and be happy - you're computer ACTUALLY(!) plays old games!
Mine can't either new FPS's and barely some strategy games(LAG and freezing!) and neither I can play old goodies! GAH!

I think that "back in the day" people like Ken and Roberta Williams were creating truly new things, because there were no defined genres, no market analyisis etc. so they just did their thing, and creativity followed.
Now that those gaming genres have been established things go pretty much the way Mighty Midget stated. Big business isn't particularly good at just going with free-flowing creativity, so a creative medium like games suffer.

Incidentally, what was up with the ending of Dreamfall?! That has to be the most annoying and ridiculous ending to a game ever. It made me feel like the time (and money) I had put into the game was just a waste.
It felt as if Mr. Tornqvist was giving me the middle finger salute and laughing in my face whilst telling me, "Ha! Now I've got you for the infinite number of sequals that I plan to produce, which will trade off the originality and freshness of the first game, but will progressively get worse and worse as the gameplay and writting die slowly and painfully at the hand of profit margins and corporate strategy."

Yup, it irritated me :)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(howmanymegs @ Jan 12 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]274414[/snapback]</div>No, you're not alone. Everyone is. ^_^
They stopped producing good games like several years ago. If you now find any enjoyable games that are high end, it's a gem. Rare.
Games like Tetris, Super Mario, Flashback, Indiana Jones, Zelda, Lands of Lore, a.s.o., a.s.o.

WILL PROBABLY NEVER EVER BE INVENTED AGAIN!!! :hairpull:

It seems to me that today everything is about fancy-a55 graphics. <_<

Well, not all, there are rare exceptions. One of them is a RPG game made by German team in a city nearby, called Gothic. Two sequels followed, each one worth playing through in my eyes that loved the first game on the first encounter, and hungry took on the second game in the series, soon after adding the expansion pack to it. Only the third game is waiting yet to be played through one day when my PC will be a better one than I have now :)
Of course, this game is quite a unicum among the today's games anyway, but not all new games are boring and lacking good ideas, there are sometimes some worth playing too :)

Maybe all of the ideas has been invented?
Maybe there is no place for home made games, that brings something new?
Maybe it won't give money enough to producers, when they'll create something old-school style?

Maybe. But then it's time for something that would succesfully replace the computer games in the mass interest list, and I don't think that's soon enough to happen as there doesn't exist yet such a thing that would be more popular than computer games.

It's not just you. I'm 23 and most of my favorite games came out before/during my time in elementary and middle school.

And not just PC games, either.

Nintendo has never surpassed Super Mario Bros. 3 or Super Mario World.

Square has never surpassed Final Fantasy VI.

IMO, the best games have the VGA-style, Super Nintendo quality, 256 color graphics. Good enough to inspire awe and wonder, but you still have to fill in all the details by yourself and make you use your imagination. Beyond that, you tend to get too busy making ultra graphics and forgetting things like gameplay or plot (I'm looking at you, Final Fantasy VII and beyond).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thanos6 @ Jan 12 2007, 01:54 PM) [snapback]274548[/snapback]</div>YAY! That's what I'm saying! :w00t:
Don't you think the developers had to put even MORE effort im making good graphics with less options?
I mean you really can see how much time and passion is in the graphics. :wub: ^_^

IMO it's simply that producers seem too fixated on super-hyper graphics and don't care much about gameplay.
They just want to make "THE next shiny thing for the masses".

Those games where the makers actually put effort into gameplay are few and far between.

But there is also that part worse then most, these inept producers who produce "games" like Terrorist Takedown, Ardennes Offensive etc... :vomit:

You are not alone. I'm 25 and it been a long, long time since I've played a true gem for the first time. Recent games just don't cut it, part for the reasons cited above, part because all the budget is mainly dedicated to graphic candy first, then the rest follow and gameplay is often relegated to the latest stage.

The real problem here is not the producers in themselves... The main problem here is that most, if not all of us regulars here at Abandonia, are Elites. Elites of our gaming age. We are so much on top of our turf that we not only reign as master of our console/medium of choice, we also wish to communicate with others like us in an effort to exchange ideas, ideals and goals. At least, that's how I see it.

Then, we have on the other side of the balance the average Joe who plays for fun and don't care the slighlest bit about what is going on in the scene. All they want is games they consider as fun (read stupidly simple, especially since most of them are complete newbies or losers in the sense that they just plain suck at videogames) but extremely flashy and easy on the eye. As long as it works and it's graphicaly well done, they are happy.

Now, the gaming companies are not stupid. They are completely aware of this and what is going on... But truth is, whatever the kind of type of game you build, the only way to really make profit is to mass sell the game. No matter if the game is really poor, as long as you ship millions of them you are making huge profit! Is it really a surprise then that those aforementioned companies aim almost all their products to the biggest customer range in term of number? Not at all.

And that's where we lose, my friends. Because in anything, there can't be a big number of Elites in a given group. It's the mathematical law of the average: you'll always have extreme cases, but the vast majority will always be around the middle... Like the average Joe.

Well said Eagle of Fire. I would like also to add a quote from some guy of an older game company whose both names I don't recall right now - "We make games on a motto: from freaks for freaks". That's how it was earlier, therefore the games had a certain touch to them they lack today, as today it's rather "From big companies for the masses and their money".

"We make games on a motto: from freaks for freaks".

Well said sir, well said.

If games have become mass consumption entertainment as Eagle of Fire says (with which I agree) then every so often something glorious should wriggle its way out of the consumer demand "Long Tail." The annoying thing is finding those gems in amongst all the sub-par products.

EoF is right.

The video games industry is growing to become a major factor in entertainment. Sure, you won't find a virtual Hollywood where Lazy Jones, Pacman, the Mario Bros, Lara Croft and the others live, and it still finds it hard to be accepted as an entertainment phenomenon as the movie indutry, but the fact is that it is getting as important as Hollywood or Bollywood, spewing out products for the masses. The grumpy, living-in-the-past abandonhead lot that we are will never become an important target group for these companies. Movies again: I prefer older movies, not because they're old, but because they offer me what I want in a movie, even if they don't have the latest digital special effects. But as with underground/indie movies, you have underground/indie games. Take 5 Days for instance. Here's a fairly new game that takes me back to "the Glorious Days Of Old".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Icewolf @ Jan 12 2007, 09:23 AM) [snapback]274469[/snapback]</div>Yeah, this sucks. Just look what they did to Counter Strike Source. Semi-Fancy graphix but a *meep*ed up netcode and countless other shortcomings when compared to CS 1.6, wich had countless shortcomings to CS 1.5 wich was teh rulerer of all.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_fifth_horseman @ Jan 12 2007, 02:26 PM) [snapback]274553[/snapback]</div>I actually purchased Ardennes Offensive and i finished it just because i was so angry at myself for even getting that crap in the store... :wallbash:

I think that some of the games that are here are not as much entertaining as the new ones. Many things have changed. For example Warcraft (not WoW): I never liked to play the first part because of controls. I find it annoying to click on the icons or use the shortcuts. I like the W2 style, where my army knows what I want after just one click. And in w3, they not only know what they should do, but they know how not get stuck in front of some trees.

When i was starting my adventure with abandonia i downloaded a lot of games, which I had played whaen I was a kid. Another example: International Karate. After playing MK4 or SF:alpha it's nothing more than a nice memory. Not playable for me.

The thing is different with games, which are (I think I cn say it) gone. 2D simple games. Pac-Man style. I still like to play sometimes a C64 game called "Wizard of Wor" It's really fun stuff to me. Montezuma's Revenge, Gods, Blues Brothers also are on my computer, and i play them sometimes.

Everything is changing. Games are, we are ...

It's very good to have place like this, to watch all of the things, that we have been playing with, when we were younger, to show today kids a part of history.

Thanks for the replies, fellas. I knew this was the right forum to post on with my pain and sufffering.

Of course, I agree that its less about "hardcores" like us and more about that 12 yr old boy I saw in EB getting 5 games (how does one even find 5 games to buy in one go?) but I suppose its the rejection that hurts so much! I mean, when I was 12 I was so excited about getting the latest King's Quest for Christmas that I wrote (with pen and paper) to Roberta Williams - and she actually wrote back. Cool, hey? And although I'm 28, I felt a similar excitement waiting for HOMM 5 and Dreamfall last year (soon to be replaced by disappointment). I wonder if Ragnar Tornquist would write back. (Might be worth a try.)

Its not that I want to go back to the pixelated days of yore but surely they can use new technology to make a few more decent games. And for the record, I HATE 3D graphics. I dont consider close up views of angulated idiots to be any better than a pixelated little King Graham sprite.

Meg

PS. I played Ultima 7 again recently (yay) and was reminded of the whole Elizabeth and Abraham story. For those of us who remember, Origin created absolute masterpieces with the Ultimas (at least from 4 onwards). But Electronic Arts; nowdays "good", thosedays evil, were trying to buy Origin when they were creating Ultima 7. Consequently Elizabeth and Abraham (EA) in the story were these incredibly powerful and evil characters spreading a false, if super-capitalist style "religion" in which "worthiness precedes reward" and other little telling catch phrases. Certainly after EA did buy out Origin, there were no more good Ultimas. Anyway, I appreciated Ultima 7 all the more given my current disappointments so I'm recommending a revisit to anyone who needs therapy.

Civ 3 and 4 can be better if you turn off movement animations.
I also like best Civ 2 and 1.
And the older Heroes of Might and Magic.

I'm only 13 so I don't think you're old or perhaps I am. Awww

If it helps any, I've been feeling this way since late 2003. I've stopped playing new games almost completely, I only play old games from the 90s. It's not our imagination either, at least I don't think so. I've talked about this with other people and at other forums, and most hardcore PC gamers agree that the quality of games has gone downhill sharply with the rising popularity of gaming to the general public.

It's rough, but its reality and there's no escaping it. Since about 2004, I've been going back to the early 90s and playing older games I had missed the first time around. I've played very few new games, and I'm mostly focusing on older games that were great but for some reason or another I never got around to playing. The only new games I've played are Oblivion, FEAR, and Company of Heroes a bit. I'm not very impressed by those, and they don't hold my attention like Crusader No Remorse or Ascendancy does. So, despite having a new computer, I mainly use Dosbox or use an older computer I have and play old games. I scour the internet, Ebay, and used book stores for old games. I've discovered some amazing gems doing this, and its become my new favorite hobby, so I totally recommend it. Don't get discouraged by the current trends in PC gaming. In my opinion, PC gaming is dead or in hibernation, but there's PLENTY of quality old games out there just waiting to played by us today!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(U-Boat Commander David @ Jan 12 2007, 11:00 PM) [snapback]274637[/snapback]</div>Be happy you never had been acquainted with the crud known as "Wilczy Szaniec". (it's not the same as Wolfenstein, though both of the names refer to the same location). Urgh. :wallbash:

Master of Orion 3... <_< I tryied it way too many times, tryied with and without the patches... This is and will always stay one of the crappiest game I ever played! Arrgh!!! How dare they destroy one of the best 4X franchise like that? :tai:

In final, I'd like to ask a question: why do we need newandimprovedgamegraphicssogreatweneedtheverylast graphiccardbecauseomgit'ssoincreadiblygreatandwhat notversion47612.23, when you can have this:
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/9716/ninjann2.gif


I rest my case. ^_^

Im a huge fan of HOMAM3 and HOMAM5 was actually a pleasant suprise, thought I have to agree that adjusting the camera angle can be somewhat annoying at the times.

I have been discussing this whole "games are getting numb and boring" topic with many friends of mine. It seems or feels that every single game nowadays is a sequel or sequels sequel (but also in hollywood and in series too). The old scene of gaming, where technology was limited (and therefore people had to try to hook the player in other way than graphics only) is over. Im not saying that great games don't pop out anymore, they are just fewer and fewer. Usually the most innovative game ideas come from indie scene (and in most cases when I wan't to pay for the game, I can't because of the paying system).

Sigh. I put my trust to indie, thought even indies don't make really good ideas nowadays. What looks or feels original doesn't necessarily mean that it's fun. It's a very complicated matter.

Hmm, what is "indie"? :unsure:

Indie as independet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_games

Ah, like Tank Blaster II. I know few of such games.
Tank Blaster 1 is freeware by now, btw., reachable from the link. Don't worry of German, the game itself supports English as well.

The same thing that happened to movies, happened to games. Stocks must always go up. So when you spend 20 mil on making a game, it better hit. But that means the developers don't take chances and stick a formula of things that work. They get less innovative and take fewer chances.

So practically, the game producers caused themselves to lose gradually the imagination in creating games in favor of ever larger, more complex and graphically more detailled games that began to offer larger, but at the same time more and more dull worlds that lack the unique spark that the earlier, small games that encouraged our own imagination possessed, even without such shining graphics and greatness.
Somehow I can't say this "revolution" of the games today was for the better direction... But then again, time never stays still, and maybe it's just a passing period prior to something new.

i'm only 18 and yet i find new RPG's hard to get into. the older generation of RPG's seems to hook me more than games like kingdom hearts/FF X/X-2. only PS2 generation RPG i managed to get into at one point was dark cloud. most of the RPG's i play are older generation RPG's (there is no way any of the final fantasy games or dragon quest games could beat fallout 1 or 2 for depth or gameplay :P) now the ideas are just too "samey" and what's with remakes (i find it hard to stomach FF1+2+3 on nes but i'd rather play them than the PSX, GBA and DS remakes anyday). and i also hate spinoffs of good old games (i.e. Fallout: Brotherhood of steel for PS2/Xbox or Fallout: Piece of S**t as i like to refer to it as - basically baldurs gate: dark alliance in the fallout universe as a desperate attempt at making money before interplay went bankrupt :wallbash:)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thanos6 @ Jan 12 2007, 01:54 PM) [snapback]274548[/snapback]</div>amen to that :ok:

Sometimes you have to dig more..... I search for game forums and just browse ones that I have never been to before.....Then I see a thread about a game bought and a recommendation, then as I read down the thread I see others joining in saying what a good game it is 'and thanks for telling me about it' type messages. This, for example, is how I found out about Space Rangers 2. A Game barely anyone has heard of, is a small publisher product, not an indie game, and once known and looked for it will not be hard to see how loved it is. But the media doesn't know how to handle games that are full of gameplay but not uber graphically. Hence not listed on any 'Reader Game of the Year 2006' so you could vote for it and not mentioned in any game of the year awards, and yet, just one site, Gamespy, put it at No.4 in their Top 10 games of 2006. Just the one site. And yet, if you check the reviews, it got plenty of high 80's and low 90's scores, so was worthy of lots of attention, but just didn't get it because the media doesn't know how to handle these 'smaller' publishers, with their 'smaller' games. Hence nothing anywhere, and then this one beacon, and the total reverse for the Oblivions and Company of Heroes, etc, of this world.

So when we talk about modern gaming, I think we are talking about the major publishers and the product they put out. But underneath, if you look, there are gems in the dust. Space Rangers 2, comes with Space rangers 1 for free and is like a Sid Meier's Pirates in Space, with a touch of Elite, Star Control 2 and MOO, with a dash of Asteroids, Infocom and Mech Warrior thrown in for good luck! I have about 60 hours into it and have restarted 4 times. I doubt it will leave my hard drive this year, or maybe even next year. It is modern 'retro', and with the success of the Wii and retro becoming huge on all the consoles and through DOSBox on PC too, I think we will see more of these 'modern retro's' and they will get more attention. If they don't, and things stay the same, I think we could be looking at the last 1 or 2 years of PC gaming.

I have to disagree with those of you who say that newer game aren't as good. Just to name some really good titles from the past few years...

Metal Gear Solid 3
Resident Evil 4
Guitar Hero 1 and 2
Final Fantasy 12
Battlefield 2
The Suffering
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
God of War
Burnout 3
Gran Turismo 4
Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

I hope it's a joke, Shiningserpnt, else it's not really funny... Most of the games mentioned in your last post are really, really bad. Especially in term of originality.

How many FF can you make without sacrificing the originality? <_<

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shiningserpnt @ Jan 20 2007, 06:29 AM) [snapback]275735[/snapback]</div>hmm... these are the only decent ones i can see (i can't pass judgement on zelda and RE4 though)
but they don't have the same draw as the original zelda when it came out or the original RE on PSX when it came out. i mean it's fun going round as CJ in san andreas knifing random people from behind :P but when the original GTA came out it was a new concept rather than an idea that has been recycled but improved to a point that if you compared GTA and san andreas they wouldn't look or play like they are in the same series (i know partly due to technical limitations when GTA was made but that's a moot point)

I must be old, because I still get a kick out of playing games like MOO, even after having experienced Halo 2 and GoW, etc. Pretty pictures and a high framerate is nice, but originality is good too.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Eagle of Fire @ Jan 20 2007, 04:46 AM) [snapback]275752[/snapback]</div>
If all you base your opinion of a game on is originality, 99% of all the games in history suck. Since the 70's people have been ripping other people's games, this isn't exactly a new trend. How many older games can you say are truly original either?

Besides that, being that they are games, the most important thing in them gameplay. So long as it's fun then why does it matter that much how original it is?

How many of those did you actually play, and, more importantly, how long did you play them before you decided that that are really, really bad?

I played very many games earlier, and I played some of the "new" games, and I can't agree with you, the games you mentioned above don't come in comparison with the classic Dos games when it comes down to fun. As for San Andreas, it might be ok but I already was turned off by unnecessary graphical violence in the previous GTA game so I simply avoid them both, thinking that that's stupid games. But that's a personal opinion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Scatty @ Jan 22 2007, 10:06 AM) [snapback]275923[/snapback]</div>I find it funny how we all tend to forget too often that that is true, and that opinions are just that; personal opinions. Like taste and preferences, opinions on what makes a good game can't be discussed in terms of right or wrong. One thing about it is that it comes down to the kinds of associations you make. Why on earth should we all have the same associations, and why on earth do we keep forgetting this?

I play games for two things:

Story or Fun.

If the story's good or the game's a lot of fun (or both), then I play the game, no matter how new or old it is.

If, however, the story is good, but the game a pile of crap with no enjoyment at all, then I prefer reading a book.

That's why I love the old-school adventures so much. It's like playing a book.

I play both new and old games - the discussion is like asking which you like better - apples or oranges?

I rate games by length of time I put in (I must really like it if I keep playing!) divided by cost.

Right now I am playing Realms of the Haunting full 4cd version - graphics, controls and video clips are dated but I am having a great time! Glad I paid $10 for the full game used rather then play the free cd rip version.

What I play in new games that I like:

Alice
HL 2 plus mods / add ons but gameplay / length HL 1 still rules!!!! I like Steam for updating the graphics on HL 1 putting new life into a classic. I still go online for Day of Defeat, Deathmatch classice, etc. to get crushed!
Painkiller - I know mindless FPS clone but so much fun!
Doom 3 plus mods / add ons - scary at night.
Unreal tourment - must be my age I prefer less chrome in this older version compare to Unreal 2004, sometimes DM but moslty monster hunt I chuckle at some of the creative levels design by fans.
Alien vs Predator 2 - love the solo missions and last man alive online play
Wargames:
TOAW - COW still play this one via e mail!
Combat Mission BO/Berlin/Ak still via e mail!
All Steel Panthers versions

Some of this titles are "old" but not "old" enough for old games!

Old games:

Realms - noted above
Legacy - realm of terror & Stonekkeep - just started, finally found a walkthru for "tough" spots, next in line to play.
V for Victory series - great wargames!
Conflict Middleeast - play this game to death, seldom "win".
Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe - love this game, graphic sucks today but so much fun just to fly and shoot down stuff! Not abanonware I believe.
Colonial Conquest (Atari ST) love this game, playing via e mail right now.
Dungeon Master (ST and PC - PC version rewrittin by a big fan)) First RPG that made me play to the end, want to play the squels.

So I think there are plenty of good stuff coming out along with the junk, just read reviews and try the demo's out or (like me) wait a year or two to get them at bargin bin - half price or less!

Totally agree, I enjoyed Oblivion, but know I am enjoying another similar game called Outcast, about 5 years old, and am also playing Darklands, 15 years old, and I have just started playing Dungeon Seige 1, which is 2/3 years old.

I don't consider listing them in 'modern' or 'retro' or 'new' or 'old', I only ever list them in like or dislike order, because I don;t think age has anything to do with gameplay. Is Rubik's Cube modern and hopscotch retro? Is Monopoly modern and Snakes and Ladders retro? No. They are all just games enjoyed by all ages at various ages.

So I play computer games. That's all, computer games. If you want to list the games I am playing in chronological order, fine, go ahead. but I never would.

One thing that I've found is that even bad older games still amuse me more than bad new games. Even poor old games have a certain edge, most of the time its creativity. For instance, Baldies was panned as a terrible game, but I enjoyed just because i could tell a lot of creativity went into making it. The same goes for Creature Shock, Outpost, and other poor dos games. Sure there were some real stinkers out there just like today, but a lot of the average ones were still enjoyable and still are today.

But poor new games are really quite poor, mostly because they attempt to copy eachother and they all shoehorn into 2 or 3 genres. This makes them quite boring, they lack the creativity.

I would much rather play a merely average older dos game than any merely average new game.

On a plus side, I recently installed Privateer 2, Wing Commander 2, and Wing Commander 1. Flight sim heaven!

I have to agree on that.

I think the worst way a game can go wrong is to make it generally good, and then ruin it with something very stupid, like frustrating gameplay and artificial methods of making the game longer (such as sudden deaths, save points etc).

What I have noticed about new games is that they are very often frustrating. Or if they aren't frustrating, they are so long and boring. I don't really mind if game is short as long as it's intense, well put to gether and fun to play. I don't see any reason to buff my lvl 39 warrior to next level by spending countless hours and to gain only little (and to reach the level cap and therefore make the character useless).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Morrin @ Jan 25 2007, 07:18 AM) [snapback]276353[/snapback]</div>Yep. I the older games you somehow develop militancy for making it. It's not (at least me) making me agressive or annoyed and thinking "what a phu-king game. Too bad I spent money on it."
The old games you can play over and over again.
Hell, I think I'd even enjoy playing through Maniac Mansion the 26th time. :w00t:

I agree with you Icewolf (that you can play the older games over and over) and I don't think it's purely the nostalgia that drives me to do it either. A good story is a good story no-matter what medium it pops up in, be it a game, a movie or written on the back of a shopping list - If it's compelling, people will keep returning to it again and again.

Don Andy is ded right, a good adventure game is like playing a book.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lulu_Jane @ Jan 25 2007, 10:16 AM) [snapback]276382[/snapback]</div>Reminds me of Broken Sword 1. I was somehow sad when it ended.
Exactly like that story in four volumes i read.

I compared computer games to an interactive book or movie - sucks you in and makes you come back to it time and again (the "engrossing" factor) to play it. Some games you play over & over, others you play once & that's it, some you quit from lack of interest! New vs old seems no to matter.

Old games short on fancy graphics yet made up for it for clever interaction / detail like an old book or movie.
No CGI blue screen to depend on.

New games do take advantage of it, if gameplay / storyline is boring you don't return to it and quit. I also felt the test of a Sci-Fi movie is strip away the flash and see if it stands on it's own two feet. The early Star Wars special effects was weak, but the movies were "charming" even today. Same with Alien series, Termanator, etc. First Jaws movie also. Last bunch of Star Wars for me were boring, too much CGI! The later Jaws where soo bad they are fun to watch today! Same with most horro movies. Just like some fancy new games...

I see the adult gaming public more and more going back to "old" games like classic books or movies that stood the test of time. Kids will always go for new game flash, the lastest fad game, etc. Just like teen low budget movies that depend on formula, a crowd will always see it.

Being older I don't want a steep learning curve on a game wasting my time to see if I like it. That's why I always check reviews and dive back into "old" classics but still try out some new games after being out for a year. Plus the "real" reviews show up and bugs / patches been work out by then.

Anyway, IMHO

M

Hey, all these comments show why PC game sales are falling every year.

Publishers today just don't understand they have new competition, its called Home of the Underdogs, Abandonia, Replacementdocs and DOSBox. (H.A.R.D.!)

How many of us didn't play some DOS games at all, or for very long, even though we liked them, because of the grief to get it running in DOS with all those memory problems and crashes. Now that same game can be downloaded for free, ran in DOSBox with no grief at all and for the first time a game you bought 12-15 years ago is playing on your modern PC perfectly, running at just the right speed and with great sound, which it didn't do all that time ago!

The EA's/Valve's of this world need to understand what's really chasing at their heels. It's retro gaming. Whether it's DS, Wii or virtual machine 360/PS3 gaming, it's retro that is growing by leaps and bounds due to shallow conservative modern gaming!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(humorguy @ Jan 25 2007, 07:26 PM) [snapback]276448[/snapback]</div>I see that quite unrealistic. Gaming companies have made some retro releases on portable devices every now and then but it is the new games that really sell out. New kids on the gaming scene, they see the graphics most appealing. Certainly we, the seniors are still the most potent customers (we have more money) but more and more of us "oldies" start to get bored of it and either start doing something else/start playing oldies (and in that right, you are right).

Exactly!

Although that's also why the latest Broken Sword release just isn't doing it for me. The B.S storyline has been consistently great through each installment, but in Angel Of Death it is so hard to actually "get into" the flow of the story (and hence, the game itself) because the "updated" and "advanced" user interface is so clunky and somewhat illogical.

Also, the camera p.o.v movement and character movement is pretty hopeless. Even though they might be the most "up to date" thing they could spew out, it really ruins the experience of the story when something is buggy and illogical all for the sake of Big-Shiny-and-New Syndrome.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(humorguy @ Jan 25 2007, 08:26 PM) [snapback]276448[/snapback]</div>The sales are falling? Are you sure? At the end of last year i read how Gaming industry surpassed the movie industry in revenue and how it continues to grow. I doubt this that the sales are falling. Afterall someone that tasted only new graphics is not likely to be interested in old games. I mean how many kids today have spectrum emulator (or C64) installed on their computer and playing those games? adventure or simple arcades. In all these years i still havent' managed to finish School daze. i doubt any of today's kids even knows what that game was all about (great concept btw would like to see it in 3D).

they have Postal now or something like that ^_^

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lulu_Jane @ Jan 26 2007, 08:27 AM) [snapback]276518[/snapback]</div>Well, I've already been slightly disappointed by Broken Sword 2: Mirror of Darkness

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lulu_Jane @ Jan 26 2007, 07:27 AM) [snapback]276518[/snapback]</div>Remember what you say is a lot of gaming propaganda. Firstly, is costs about $10 to go to the movies and about $15 for buy a DVD. A computer game is at least $30 full price and quite often over $50! therefore you can sell 1/3 of the games to match the income of the movie industry. That means PC games sales are down 50% over the last 7 years, but because we only get overall figures for sales, we think it's brilliant, but that's because of and the DS and the Gameboy before it as much as anything else, and while that's gaming, it's nothing to do with PC gaming. Last year saw the lowest number of PC game releases in 5 years. How can you have record sales in PC gaming if the games aren't being released?!

You cannot project generic video gaming sales and say every format is doing equally well. DS is doing incredibly well. More than enough growth to cover falling PC game sales.

Remember, even Mark rein, head of Id software has admitted that Doom 3 sold less than half of the original Doom, releases over 12 years ago.

Ummm, where in my post am I quoting "gaming propaganda?"

I've no idea why you quoted me before continuing your post, because they're not related. I was referring to the comments that were likening games to "interactive fiction/story-books."

Anyway - in response to your comment, I think that it's slightly skewed to compare the price of a movie ticket to the price of a PC game. You pay $10 for 2 hours of entertainment when you go to the cinema, and $30 for upwards of 25 hours of entertainment when you pay for a game. Admittedly, you get more than 2 hours of entertainment when you buy a DVD, but the type of entertainment is different (just like cinema) it's the equivalent of comparing apples to oranges.

Perhaps that's where it all started to go wrong, when people thought that these different mediums were interchangable and therefore watered it all down for the lowest common denominator.

The reason why PC game sales have went down is the new trend: consoles. While PC has it's own good sides such as screen (I don't like playing with TV screen, unless very good TV and I don't have money for that) and keyboard+mouse in some genres. But in all other ways, consoles simply make it lot more fun and easier: just put the disk in and play! No techinal issues, no installing, no wondering will the game work and so on.

This has brought PC players AND new players who don't know anything about tweaking and fixing to console playing. It's effortless fun and that is what is IN nowadays. Everything-quickly-to-me. And besides, wich is "sexier": old good yeller or exciting Wii?

And one more thing: piracy.

Actually in US the PC game market grew by 1 percent last year:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=22329

A lot of PC games are sold online nowdays.

Yes, sales are actually doing quite well. The Gaming Industry has learned to dumb down titles and cross-platform them to target a much younger market. That's affected titles like Oblivion, the simplest of Bethsoft's games, where you're literally coached by the game with overly obvious hints nearly every step of every quest. But all that PR money spent on Oblivion...? It lined up all those wet-behind-the-ears, eager young arcaders who thought Diablo was an ancient RPG, and had just gotten their first (poorly paying) job at a website or magazine.

The result was that Oblivion sold like mad--and now, the older users who enjoyed Morrowind or Daggerfall are frequently mad. I would expect older gamers in the future to turn to indie titles or seek other means of entertainment. Just my two forints.

This thread is a pretty good argument as to why we should be supporting community/amateur made title (whether they are released as freeware or not.)

Just like any cultural movement - when the mainstream fails, those who care enough and are talented enough, create their own niche products. Musical movements have occured this way again and again, for example Punk, Rap etc. We need to find our place in The Long Tail and spread the joy.

(Of course Abandonia and AReloaded are doing this already ;))

Borodin and Lulu Jane, could not have said it better myself.

And everyone else take out The Sims and it's expansions, which made up 5 of the top 10 best selling games of 2006 and trust me, you have a decline in PC gaming. It has been declining for at least 3 years. It's been accepted, for example, that on PC the original Doom (1993) sold twice as many units as Doom 3 (2004) and Half Life (1998) has sold almost twice as much as Half Life 2. Peter Molyneux of Lionhead has said in an interview that he doesn't believe any PC only game can make a profit any longer. He has also hinted that Lionhead, owned by Microsoft, will not release another PC game. Also, last year (2006) saw the fewest number of PC game releases in 4 years.

It's not that all gamers are leaving PC for elsewhere, to be honest, it seems it's more the hardcore gamers. While hardcore gamers still exist, they buy many fewer games (in 2005 based on surveys a PC gamer bought 5 PC games. In 1995 an average PC gamer bought 12!) You get little hints that there are fewer hardcore gamers by, for example, Neverwinter Nights 2, one of PC's biggest releases in November of last year, being thrown out of last weeks PC Top 10 by a re-entry of a puzzle game called Bejeweled 2. For a AAA title to be pushed out of the Top 10 12 weeks after release by a re-entry of a casual gamer game shows how much the market is changing!

Lastly, we are living proof. Retro gaming has totally taken off over the last couple of years or so! Last year Ebay opened a specific retro gaming section (a sure sign of major interest!) and sites like HOTU and Abandonia have grown enormously! If you add in the growth in emulation of the Commodore 64 ( A Commodore 64 site called Lemon 64 has forums at least as busy as Abandonia's, if not busier!) and the early consoles like NES, you have a huge number of people now involved in Retro gaming. They have to come from somewhere, and like Borodin said, I think it's the older, more hardcore gamers that have been playing games for more than 10 years realising that the 'fun'has gone out of modern PC gaming, but it's still there in the classics! Let's also not forget that a couple years ago, if you wanted to play a DOS game, you had to prey it would run in win98/XP, you needed to try and slow down your PC and if it didn't run in compatibility mode in XP, you were stuck. If you still had Win98 you had the option of booting into DOS with a DOS boot disk, but it was all so ;hardcore' - now we have DOSBox, which has allowed everybody to play these classic DOS games relatively easily, and with the DOSBox front-ends now being developed, like D-Fend, it's getting easier all the time! In fact, it's these retro games that are the most like console games. They don't take a long time to install, and using a DOSBox front end, you can start them up immediately without need for CD swapping, etc. This all brings people to retro and away from the modern, expensive, shallow PC games we mostly get now. Between hardware demands and quality of PC games, I doubt I will buy more than 2 or 3 AAA PC games this year. I might buy the same amount of independent games, but mostly it will be retro gaming.

There's a change happening, and we're part of it. I'd get used to it, because I think there will be major changes in gaming over the next couple of years. It's going to be quite a roller-coaster ride I think! :)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(humorguy @ Jan 27 2007, 01:27 PM) [snapback]276691[/snapback]</div>
Well said! I completely agree. I think it has come become the norm for PC gamers to say, "PC gaming is not dying, everyone just says that when a new console comes out." Well this is true, PC gaming is always "dying" when a new console comes out, it happened when the Genesis came out, when the N64 came out, when the PS1 came out, especially when the PS2 came out, and even more especially when the XBox came out. And now again they say it is happening with the Xbox 360, Wii, and PS3. But I truly think that now is different, and as you said PC game is at a revolution, a change that we are all part of. If you think back to those other console releases, they effected the PC gaming community, but not in the magnitude that they do today. There is so much more money in gaming today than there was 10 years ago. When the PS2 came out, a few games were ported from PC to PS2 or vice versa, but each gaming platform had their respective games and gaming community. But now, the line has truly blurred between console games and PC games, and that blurry line has shifted towards the console. There may be just as many PC games made, but more and more of these games resemble consoles games, for the sole reason that they ARE console games or developed to be played on a console. We never had the huge cross marketing that we do now, there was always a good distinction between PC games and console games, with many exceptions of course.

But now we've seen how much money a console can make. We see celebrities playing Xbox and Playstation games. We see hollywood scale marketing and TV advertisements for games like Gears of War. And this has brought developers over to the console side (cue Imperial March music). I think Lionhead studios is a prime example of this. They were the last developer I predicted that would delve gungho into console gaming, simply due to the nature of the games they make. But it sounds like they've given up that style of game, and are instead going to focus on the console market.

So we are seeing more and more developers developing console games and pandering to the Xbox generation, does that really equal the death of PC gaming? I say no way. In fact, I think this isn't necessarily a bad thing. The proliferation of the internet and broadband has facilitated the explosion of retro and independent gaming communities. The void that big developers left is being filled by small people who are like us, who want to see creativity return to PC gaming, or who want to dedicate thier time to forgotten classics. I think it served as a rude awakening for us, but because of that rude awakening we are even more aware of how GOOD PC gaming CAN be, and there are groups out there more than ever dedicated to creating GOOD PC games, even it is on a low budget. So I think this change in PC gaming to the independent developers and retro communities is a good thing, and it will be interesting to see what happens. It will be interesting to see if a total change ever occurrs. If almost all developers will abandon PC gaming, except for ports, and PC gaming is totally taken over by small indpendent houses and retro communities. It will be interesting.

*snip*

[/quote]




Let's slap each other's backs, as you hit the nail on the head too! The concern is the money side. No money is really made from retro,. at least the publishers and developers don't. Ebay might!

Without income, do we get coverage in magazine websites like Gamespot or IGN? If we don't get coverage on these sites how will we know about these independent games? If PC gaming is seen as 'dead' and no one is previewing or reviewing these smaller publisher's games, how will we know how good they are? We will end up spending times downloading games we don't really know much about and finding out by playing if we like it/if it's any good? It could be a very different way of buying PC games compared to just going down to your local retailer or online retailer!

I don't think anyone can really say what's going to happen, but I am sure there will be much change over the next 2-3 years. The Wii is taking off. The PS3 seems to have a question mark over it. The 360 is really a PC in a console box, Except for the Wii, all consoles are slowly turning into multimedia machines that do many things - just like a PC, and are getting more expensive because of it.

I am just glad I have kept a ton of my old PC games, like SEAL Team and Dragon Wars and Outcast and Fallout and all the LucasArt games like Battlehawks 1942, Sam and Max and Star trek 25th Anniversary!, etc and I have kept my Playstation with all the great RPGs that came out for it like Fear Effect and Syphon Filter and lastly I have kept my Commodore 64 along with games like Red Storm Rising and Elite and Maniac mansion, etc!

If you're a PC gamer and you haven't dug your foxhole yet, I hope you have your helmet on at least! :)

Ive found my computer isnt fast enough to run the latest games and I cant afford to upgrade it.

And is it just me or do a lot of the new games require a serious investment of time to actually get anywhere?

i think the wii is on the right track, putting the fun back in. I went to a pub the other day and they had got rid of the arcade machines (the obligatory big game hunt and tournament golf), set up a stage area and a big projection tv and had bought a wii with wii sports.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(STFM @ Jan 29 2007, 03:13 AM) [snapback]276944[/snapback]</div>A pub with Wii?? WHERE!? GIMME GIMME GIMME!!

The pub and the Wii setup for 'public consumption' may be illegal, they need to read the documentation small print for the Wii and the software!

Gamer's Law: No matter how fast your computer is when you buy it, in three to six months there will be games it'll be too slow for.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_fifth_horseman @ Jan 29 2007, 02:17 PM) [snapback]276993[/snapback]</div>and ...

6 months to one year to patch the program so it plays bette, fix AI & stop crashing!

The end users are the ultimate playtesters! I give credit to Doom folks that buck the trend and release no game (like good wine) before it's time (finish) - playtested!

Console games don't suffer from this being hardware dependent.

Another reason I "wait" on any hot new games plus the price drop later.

I have notice at the big computer stores PC best sellers old titles (2 - 6 years about) get repackage with no box, manuel on disc, in jewel case price about $10 - I imagine one R & D and patching costs are paid for in first year selling then pure profit for the life of the title till the bargin bin.

I agree PC profits on new stuff is just not there, however the backend like old books or video / DVD sales just keep going on old titles low margin high volumne over time.

IMHO

M

Gamer's Law #2: Whatever you pay for, your new console will be obsolete (by the gaming industry standard) as soon as they can manage to make the consumers beleive they need a new console. It doesn't matter at all if they didn't even gor around half the potential of their last one. ;)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Eagle of Fire @ Jan 29 2007, 07:42 PM) [snapback]277057[/snapback]</div>Even better, they usually do a "lite" or "slim" version of it after year or two, forcing people to buy it because the old looks so clumsy and old. That's why I have decided to never get a console again: they get old.

Whatever genres you like, there has got to be 100 retro games you would enjoy, with each one giving you at least 20-30 hours of fun gameplay. That's 2,000-3,000 hours of gaming - minimum! That equates to 125 days or 4 months at 24 hours a day! Assuming you play games for 2-3 hours a day, you are talking about 3 years plus of retro gaming! By the time you finished, there would be a new batch of retro games!

So let's face it, there is enough great retro that you don't really have to bother with the modern stuff and the hardware updating that goes with it! The only 'new' games I have bought in the last year has been a 2D 'Pirates in Space' Space Rangers 2 and an adventure game 'Secret Files: Tunugska'. Both of which would run on a 3 year old PC with no problem! :)

So with independent games becoming a bigger draw, even modern gaming for a lot of us will be modern 'retro'! :)

But don't forget that not everyone likes all game genres. One might prefer 3D shooter and RTS, while other will only like Fantasy RPG's and racing games etc.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(humorguy @ Jan 29 2007, 09:34 PM) [snapback]276973[/snapback]</div>Nah i think they are fine as long as they dont charge for its use.

STFM - You have to look into the public performance laws and the 'multiple license' side of any entertainment machine. It's never that simple.

Damn, I know Abandonia is all about old games, but not ALL new games suck. Sure, there were some real beauties that came out back in the day, but there are plenty of new games that are totally worth playing. *cough* HALF LIFE 2 *cough*. C'mon, guys, don't deny it - there are a lot of new games that are really, really good. Recently I went out and bought a bunch of Xbox games that I've wanted for ages but haven't been able to afford, and they were all great. Halo 2, Doom 3 (a great sequel that, as a long time Doom fan, I think does not disappoint), Ghost Recon:Advanced Warfighter and Rainbow Six:Lockdown, to name a few. I will admit, however, that the standard of games these days is not what it used to be. Someone said in a post way up before me somewhere that most of their favourite games were made before their time. I would say that this is also the case with me. Some of the games that hold a special place in my heart - Commander Keen 4,5 & 6, Dune 2, Ultima 8, Gender Wars & the early Command & Conquer games, were nearly all made while I was still too young to appreciate them the way I do now.

However, this still doesn't mean all new games are a load of dump.

p.s - 50 Cent : Bulletproof IS a load of dump. What a waste of money. I should've bought Soldier Of Fortune 2 instead. *sigh* I hate 50 Cent, I wish I hadn't listened to my sister.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chainsoar @ Jan 31 2007, 04:41 PM) [snapback]277304[/snapback]</div>I think we've been pointing that out already.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chainsoar @ Feb 1 2007, 01:41 AM) [snapback]277304[/snapback]</div>Anything other than FPS games?

Most surely. One of the best is an RPG by the name Gothic + Gothic 2, these both games are great. Besides, part 3 came not long ago out, but my PC is too weak for it so no way right now :P

Scatty, if you like RPGs, make my statement above just 50 terto games that will last 4 years before you need anything new! LOL!

And yes, I like RPG's and Morrowind meant I only bought one other PC game that year! So great RPG's, retro or otherwise, can save you money!

With more and more sub 15 hour gameplay shooters and arcade/adventures, I don't think future retro gamers will be able to say the same! :)

Seriously dude, you are not alone. I feel a little bored as it looks like the current new games just doesn't seem right. I will be lying if I said I enjoyed Neverwinter Nights 2. Oblivion? damn I don't even want to talk about it. The last games that I enjoyed the most is Baldur's Gate II and that was like 6 years ago. All this years I can't really say that I enjoyed playing a game as I used to and I'm 27. I started playing Ultima IV when I was in grade school and that was the game that gets me totally hooked into RPG. At the same year, I was also introduced to pen and paper AD&D. D&D and Ultima is like my lifeline to RPG even when the gold box AD&D games were purely hack and slash.

Not interested in new games or such doesn't make me feel old. I mean, as long as it has a good gameplay, it will remain a classic even when our generation fades out and Ultima is not as accessible anymore thanks to the internet. You know what really makes me feel old? Its the disappearance of gamebooks (a little OT here, sorry). I basically grew up with that.

The only games that are getting better and better these days are the FPS games. Just have a look at DOOM 3, Half-life 2, and the future game Crysis with the DX10.

Since ther're many old games i ever wanted to play i'm too busy to buy new ones... i'm waiting if there old and cheap to... buyed Doom for 10 bucks and if Half-Life 2 with the further episodes is available then i will propably buy it.

I am downloading lots of retro abandoned games, downloading text or pdf manuals for them, and a walkthru or FAQ if I can find them, then putting them all on CD's (about 25 per disk) or DVD's (about 250 per disk!). I am playing retro games all the time as well, of course, but I am worried that one day, because PC gaming is becoming close to dying that publishers may take their revenge on the vastly expanded abandonware/retro market and take everything off line, hoping we then are forced to buy their crappy modern games and save PC gaming. So I am downloading all the ones I want now, just in case! I also buy the ones I really want on ebay, etc, as one day, if all abandonware sites are closed, the cost of these games will go through the roof!

Nothing like being prepared! And the reason I think the above may happen is I am finding myself playing my retro games more and more, and just losing interest in modern PC gaming. With having to buy Vista and a DX10 card in the next 12 months at a cost of $500+ it will need some pretty special PC games for me to spend that sort of money upgrading - and I just can't see it happening!!! There may be two titles this year and another two titles next year and maybe in three years when there is around six-eight games I really want and the upgrade is only $200 (and those games are on $10 budget labels!) then i might do it!

The only new game that I'm interested in buying right now for the PC is Jade Empire SE from Bioware. That company makes superb RPG titles. I will definitely buy it when its hot having waited for 2 years since the xbox version was released. I enjoyed KoToR I immensely. To be honest, there are the only developers where I bought the game and keep it with the box in a nice drawer. Temple of Elemental evil is the other game that I keep too. For the others, I will be glad to eBay it as soon as its completed.

As for Oblivion, that definitely made the history books. Not only is it boring, the game doesn't scales with experience. Which is kind of sad considering I had high expectations from it, no thanks to Morrowind. I even upgraded my video card to a 7900GT solely for playing it. Right now, I'm happily playing Betrayal of Krondor and Ultima VI, which is pretty overkill for the card that I have. LOL

I've already stated what I think about this topic (old games = better games) but something else occurred to me recently. People are complaining more and more about the death of PC games due to consoles, and I have to say that while I don't think PC gaming will die, it IS changing. But I think this is a good thing, a very very good thing. In my opinion, PC gaming was at its height in the late 80s up until the mid to late 90s, culminating in 1998. The sharpest decline has coincided with the birth of the ultra powerful consoles like the PS2 and Xbox and later now the PS3 and 360. These had many impacts on PC gaming, one of which is money. There is so much more money involved in developing and producing games now than there was comparitively in the 90s. Because of this, as we all know, its hard for developers to be willing to take chances, and its easier to develop games for the consoles where sales far outpace PC games. So what will happen? Will developers stop making PC games and the platform will die? That seems to be what some people are saying, but I disagree. I believe that we will see a new rebirth of PC gaming that will harken back the days of the 80s and 90s. All the big name developers and publishers will move away from PC gaming and into the console market full time. The only time they will delve into PC gaming will be for cheap ports of console games. In their place, tiny publishers and developers will spring up. We will see small, unique, and creative games again, like we did in the 80s and 90s. With the money aspect less of a cloud hanging over these smaller developers heads, they will be able to focus on core gameplay and fun. Granted, we won't see the huge graphical jumps and tech increases we are seeing today as much, but they will still be there. Most people will jump ship on the PC when the graphics issue starts making itself apparent, but a large enough following will remain to sustain the economy of small publishers and independent developers making games. So we could see that creativity present in the last decade resurface as the big business gets out of PC gaming.

I know this is optimistic, but I can hope right? :ok:

an area that has really seemed to die is shareware games & adventure games, there were some really great games at one point and the companies, apogee, epic etc went on to become reaslly big but no new comanies seem to have taken their place . I know they wern't on a par with the graphics but I think the gameplay especially the platformer games would still have a major appeal if released today


some of my favourites ( not all shareware ) -

Countdown :wallbash: , took me ages to get to the end :)
Day of the tentacle
Sam n max
kings quest series
Keen
duke nukem
major stryker
bio menace
electro man
Thor, god of thunder (great little game :) :titan:

I still play some of these today when I wan't a quick game and would be only to willing to pay if similar games were being released today.

I won't pay above £35 for a game so the companies putting so much money into games are just loosing my cash as I ALWAYS wait until they come down in price. surely if something like day of the tentacle was released now it could be done for a much cheaper price and maybe some of the people who don't spend on games like myself might be willing to buy them

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cremz @ Feb 5 2007, 04:46 AM) [snapback]278031[/snapback]</div>

Are you sure you want Jade Empire SE? Because I thought I did until I found out is had that dreaded 'console conversion problem' - what is that, you ask yourself? That is movement by camera as opposed to movement by character. What do I mean? Well, movement by camera means that if your character is facing you then the WASD system would actually be S to walk toward you, D to turn to his left, A to turn to his right and W to turn around so his back is to you. But now his back is toward you, W will now move him 'into' the screen, A will turn him to face to the left, D will face him to turn to the right and S will turn him around to face you.

Now take that system and add 5 bad guy ninja's fighting you and running around all over the place - imagine how the above control system will work for you?

So unless you are an expert joypad user, you're done for, as the often quoted WASD and mouse system that Bioware spouts on about is nothing like it, they're trying to pull the wool over PC gamers eyes... Otherwise , why would they keep mentioning the WASD and mouse system for the game?!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(humorguy @ Feb 8 2007, 10:32 PM) [snapback]278527[/snapback]</div>Yeah, I get what you mean. It was a pain in the behind to get use to, especially during combat when I first played Knights of the Old Republic. I completely lost all my sense of direction and still true to this day. It has caused me to wipe a lot of times especially when I'm surrounded, no thanks to running to the wrong places. Still, I'm glad to play Jade Empire on the PC since it was intended to be a XBOX exclusive. I'll probably enjoy Dragon Age better but it will be a looong wait for that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jg007 @ Feb 8 2007, 08:10 PM) [snapback]278525[/snapback]</div>I put in that list the games of Indiana Jones: Last crusade and Fate of Atlantis
also The Dig but many of players didn´t like the game... I mean... back here in Brazil. The argument is that the game is too much linear.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cremz @ Feb 9 2007, 05:43 PM) [snapback]278645[/snapback]</div>Yeah, I get what you mean. It was a pain in the behind to get use to, especially during combat when I first played Knights of the Old Republic. I completely lost all my sense of direction and still true to this day. It has caused me to wipe a lot of times especially when I'm surrounded, no thanks to running to the wrong places. Still, I'm glad to play Jade Empire on the PC since it was intended to be a XBOX exclusive. I'll probably enjoy Dragon Age better but it will be a looong wait for that.
[/b][/quote]

I am sort of in the same boat as you - I like non-fantasy, non AD&D RPG's and games like KOTOR and Jade Empire are two of the very very very few non fantasy RPGs, so you try and put up with crappy control or whatever! But what I find worry, is Bioware going on about having the 'PC WASD and mouse system' and the media letting them get away with it! That is worrying, that a publisher can fib like that and the media can conspire with them!

Jade Empire was awesome on xbox :) that is one RPG i can say is pretty good. and i'd expect the control system on pc to be a pain since the xbox pad handled the game pretty well.

I dunno, I like oldies, but there's still plenty of excellent stuff coming out. Not that I can run most of it anymore.

well i don't think my say to the discussion will really matter; i just wanted to say i miss the old times.

sure, it's all very natural, with how mainstream video games start to be and it's starting to be a very profitable business. well, maybe i can't be all too objective because i haven't experienced the 80s gaming firsthand (i'm only 18), but it was something different in the 90s; i was a kid all excited about every new game i could play. it's not that way now, i hardly play games anymore. sometimes i just pop in some oldie to get all nostalgic - which feels nice - but i rarely play a brand new game. and if so, it's mostly games that have originally been made for the consoles, like, say, the silent hill or resident evil series. it's funny really.
not to say that the new games are really 'bad' for most part, of course. for me, they don't suck; i just got a bit out of it all and the new releases are not that much fun for me as they were 10 years ago. i still prefer the first resident evil over the last one, for instance.
sure, the gaming industry's changed a lot over the past few years, but maybe that's the case with others too?
and if not, i guess this post didn't really matter, as said earlier..

10-15 years ago you wouldn't say, like you do now, that an FPS is mostly going to be Sci-Fi, a 'real' RPG will more likely be fantasy based and all strategy games are pretty much RTS games that are getting faster and faster gameplay elements and becoming 45 degree shooters more than strategy!

We don't really get adventures any more, we don't get wargames, we get many fewer 'simulations' of the sub, plane, train variety, and anything that does not fit a rigid cookie cutter template doesn't even see the day unless it's by Sid Meier!

It's not difficult to see why we like the more retro orientated games, it's the only place to go for so mny genres and styles of game that you can no longer get in today's gaming market!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(humorguy @ Mar 11 2007, 12:34 PM) [snapback]282917[/snapback]</div>this is true though - i never quite understood why people just started to lose interest in adventure games when they were so popular back in the 90s. strange.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ado @ Mar 11 2007, 01:36 PM) [snapback]282929[/snapback]</div>this is true though - i never quite understood why people just started to lose interest in adventure games when they were so popular back in the 90s. strange.
[/b][/quote]
Remnants of the hippie empire?

I agree to the point were old games were created with more effort than today's games... It's almost as if they only focus themselves to make a game look really shiny and flashy and such, at the cost of gameplay... (few exceptions there)

Take Chrome Specforce for example...
I mean, sure! it looks great, but if you can't navigate your way to waypoint marker one because you didn't get the key, and the vehicle your supposed to be driving is completely out of control (no suspension, sending it flying every 2 turns.) then i'd say no. No thank you dear game company but your game's not up to my gaming standards...

I rest my case...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(humorguy @ Feb 8 2007, 10:32 PM) [snapback]278527[/snapback]</div>You are right, humorguy the Jade Empire SE control does play worse. In fact it play exactly like a FPS which is even worse than KoToR. (FPS/RPG FTL) The A/D is actually strafe left/right, similar to Oblivion, the system I hate but funny since I still completed Morrowind :tai: . The only thing is the combat won't be a major pain like those in KoToR as it face locked your present opponent. I forced myself to endure a little bit and it pays fruit. The superb storyline pulls me in and I am gonna complete the game no matter what.

why dont they let you fully customise your control config in console FPS'?
I want my MOH buttons to be the same as COD and Halo >:(

I've had a lot of new games which I truly liked. Most recently it's Jade Empire. Other games I have really enjoyed lately are

Dreamfall: in terms of art direction and story. It wasn't a hard game, which was good for the story. After completing the game you really felt bad, you didn't want to end things that way.

Fable: The lost Chapters > Great atmosphere, good art direction and very decent gameplay.

Deus ex 1: Great story. All about choices

Chronicles of Riddick: Awesome.

I tend to like games which actually make you feel part of the world. Good music, voice-acting, and visual surroundings are key factors. Older games do tend to have bigger replay value.

I do agree with quite a few things said before, but there's something I'm afraid hadn't been said yet.

Yes, we are getting old.

When a gamer is younger, the life is simpler. In other words, how many of us (who aren't living a carefree lives at home, with somebody else taking care of the household) really have enough time to get into a game?

I've seen and bought some new games that impressed me at first, but I never even got the chance to find out if I really like them, because I would have to take a weekend off to get into those games. That's why I still have some games I never even played (even a few years after I've bought them). It's a sad fact, but at a certain point in time, reserving time to play long games simply falls down to the bottom positions on the priority list.

With older games it's simpler. We remember them, we can recolect memories, tricks we used to know and it's easier to get back into them. Plus they have a certain sentimental value no new game could ever posses (simply because it's new and can't bring us back into the carefree days of the past).

Kids will have the same sentimental value about games from this era as we have with games roughly from 1990 till 1994

Exactly. So to them a game like Medal of Honour will represent something like (let's say) C&C represented to us. It's not the matter of which game is better, it's about capturing the spirit of the generation that grows up with it.

And we're not growing up with games anymore, which does in a way alienate us from what is currently made.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sebatianos @ Mar 21 2007, 02:07 PM) [snapback]284445[/snapback]</div>
I think you might be all surprised. My Nephew is 15 years old and has just discovered the Quest series. He has got the Police Quest series XP compatible pack and is looking to get the others! He has also surprised me by saying he got Bladerunner in a charity shop and is loving it, with no problem with the graphics! Youngsters may surprise us in what they become interested in. I think our generation of games will be found and played for a coupel more generations, with each couple years a couple of classics from the 90's dropping off the radar forever to be lost, but that will be a long time from now.

not to meniton the remakes and new techniques adopted on old games.

just a few days ago they remade quake with some lighting that before they needed some supercomputers to do it. now a dual core with good graphics would do. it looks awesome (they actually showed the doom pic).

then you have jDoom and Duke nukem remake and then there is a project to remake ultima undewrold with new graphics and not to meniton those guys recreating UFO - alien invasion (even the buggy uncomplte version looks awesome and playes nice).

*waiting for remake of QBasic nibbles*

I'm only 18 and I find myself agreeing with the OP. I still find enjoyment for multiple games, but things like Grand Theft Auto lose their touch for me quickly. I loved Elder Scrolls III. I played it for over 200 hours mostly because the only thing I wanted to work towards was becoming a werewolf. About half of that time was spent AS a werewolf, and I loved it to death. Oblivion? Nah. The graphics are great, sure, but the gameplay is almost exactly the same. The only thing different? Rolls and the ability to control your shield. Whoop de doo. I didn't spend much time on it.

I grew up from baby to now on these old video games we all play here at Abandonia. Those old games for me mean many things, my top three being:

1. Memories with my sister (no, she's not dead, I just don't see her much any more)
2. Storytelling - Older games seem to be a lot better at telling us an interesting, enjoyable story. You can also include humor here, because pretty much all of Sierra's old games had great humor in them :)
3. Gameplay - The graphics? Who needs em! These old games did plenty well with what they had, but had enough to look beautiful for the technology they used. The real strength is in the gameplay, which is what sets apart certain games from others.

Also, I wonder if I know you, Icewolf. Have you ever played Dransik before?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Faeorn Ran @ Mar 21 2007, 10:38 PM) [snapback]284475[/snapback]</div>No, sorry. I'd actually like to make that nick copyrighterd for me, but I guess that's pretty much pointless... ^_^

I'm not an online gamer at all. ^_^ But I think I'll become one if I find the time.

EDIT: Maybe I'm a moron here - was this actually an invitation...? :huh:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ado @ Mar 11 2007, 12:36 PM) [snapback]282929[/snapback]</div>this is true though - i never quite understood why people just started to lose interest in adventure games when they were so popular back in the 90s. strange.
[/b][/quote]

not true!!! just go visit - www.ghostinthesheet.com & www.justadventure.com

ghost in the sheet is not finished yet but I think it looks great so far also I have seen quite a few other adventure games on www.justadventure.com that look pretty great and that I might buy so no, I don't agree at all that the adventure genre is dead, you just have to look a bit harder .

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sebatianos @ Mar 21 2007, 10:41 PM) [snapback]284436[/snapback]</div>I think that you have said it exactly how it is - I feel the same way.

I also have this bad habit of buying games (I am a bit of a bargain bin hunter) but all that happens is, at most I will play just a handful and the rest will be added to my collection. Where they might (very rarely) get played a few years down the line, most get never touched again. As an example, I had Deus Ex for a few years before I put in the effort to really play the game, only played it at the end of 2005/2006 start of period, but even then I actually regarded and still do, as the greatest game I have ever played.

It's not so much I don't want to play them as it is I just can't.

The funny thing is, if I installed some old game that I have played before I could play it a bit right then, but doing that for a new game seems like too much effort for me nowdays. I guess that's why I am going more for the quick simply games when I do get time/feel to play a game. I used to be really into CRPGS, but now I cringe when I think about the time investment needed not only to actually learn the game, but to play it and finish it.

Heck, it took me ~6 months to finish BG1 and ~8 months to finish BG2 when I was still in high school, and even then I was gaming a lot, not every day, but I didn't have to worry about time then as I do now. Now if I think about playing a CRPG, I don't even want to think about it.

The ironic thing is while it seems I am losing my passion for gaming, maybe just getting a little older, getting new hobbies, losing interest in old ones, I still surf all the major gaming sites and Abandonware ones, to read up about games and the newest and greatest titles. I still long for the memories of the past, but to be honest with myself, I really do the the magic is going.

I have also stopped my bargain-bin "spending" sprees ;p. Not that its a "money-money" issue when you buying the games dirt cheap, more of a waste of money issue nowdays for me, since all that is most likely to happen is I buy some older AAA game that I was hoping to get at the time it originally came out, but it will just end up in my collection of games I wanted to play but never got around to - which happens to have been increasing as well.

Problem is though, when you stop going after some oldies, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you are most likely never going to ever get that game again at that price, not to mention that you are in all likely hood going to miss out on a bit of gaming history.

I guess you just got to realize that you can't play them all - you have to say good-bye some time right? I said good-bye to the TV along time ago - will it be so hard to say good bye to gaming as well :(

Man I can so see myself one day as an old man saying, back in my day gaming was magical ...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sebatianos @ Mar 21 2007, 02:07 PM) [snapback]284445[/snapback]</div>Instead of listening those whiners, that is perhaps the best explanation I have ever readed and I completely agree.
So, each of us plays what we like to play and that's it. Not much point to whine about it.. The youngsters giggle about playing some primitive oldies, but retro is cool man!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jg007 @ Mar 23 2007, 03:06 PM) [snapback]284681[/snapback]</div>this is true though - i never quite understood why people just started to lose interest in adventure games when they were so popular back in the 90s. strange.
[/b][/quote]

not true!!! just go visit - www.ghostinthesheet.com & www.justadventure.com

ghost in the sheet is not finished yet but I think it looks great so far also I have seen quite a few other adventure games on www.justadventure.com that look pretty great and that I might buy so no, I don't agree at all that the adventure genre is dead, you just have to look a bit harder .
[/b][/quote]

Never said adventure games were dead, but if you have to look harder for them, they are not doing well. By dead anyway, I think in terms of general gamers that just go into their games store on a Saturday and picks from what's on show. In the 90's he would almost always have an adventure or two to choose from. No longer. Now in that general gaming mass market, compared with the 90's adventure gaming is dead I am afraid.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Icewolf @ Mar 22 2007, 03:49 AM) [snapback]284532[/snapback]</div>No, sorry. I'd actually like to make that nick copyrighterd for me, but I guess that's pretty much pointless... ^_^

I'm not an online gamer at all. ^_^ But I think I'll become one if I find the time.

EDIT: Maybe I'm a moron here - was this actually an invitation...? :huh:
[/b][/quote]

Oh, no, you're not an idiot. LOL. I was asking because I made a friend on Dransik (which is now called Ashen Empires) some six or eight years ago, except it was actually Iceword o'Delik instead of just Icewolf.

I was just curious. Oh, don't bother copyrighting the name, he's Finnish so it won't really affect him, unless you can get one over there ;p

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sebatianos @ Mar 21 2007, 07:07 AM) [snapback]284445[/snapback]</div>I disagree. There are many games that are new that I love playing and will actually sometimes come back to.

For example, Morrowind. How old is that now? 4 or 5 years? At any rate, it's not that old, yet I've found myself playing that over again before. I loved the system and everything, and the graphics are far better than all of the older games. The graphics are nice, but again the gameplay had me enthralled.

Another game that I loved to death was Half Life 2. It had awesome graphics and sweet gameplay, but unfortunately a far too linear storyline. The exploration was good, though, as it didn't feel I was just going in a straight line. I've beaten it thrice so far, my last time being last year.

Resident Evil 4. Ho, man! Sure, it's not a PC game, but it's a console game with FLAIR. It's not too old still yet it's my favorite Gamecube game- I can think of several older games that I would pass up to play RE4 simply because the graphics, gameplay and story all scare the crap out of me, and I love it to death. I've beaten it three times. :)

My point, though, is that games aren't necessarily losing quality; it's just that the games with quality are fewer and farther inbetween. I've beaten Fable one time on the XBox and tried to play it again on the PC but found myself unable to play for longer than 30 minutes. Personally I loved the game, but the way the game works just doesn't interest me as much as other games because you end up at the same place no matter what way you develop your character. *shrug*


That's my take on it. I was interrupted a lot while trying to type this out so if it seems as though I'm rambling incoherently then feel free to ask questions (or point and laugh). :)

Faeron, you hit the nail on the head. Most people think that a 'dead' PC games market is no PC games at all. But what it is is when a market cannot sustain itself due to lack of quality product. As quality PC games become fewer and further between it will rely on the independent games industry to teach gamers that graphics isn't everything and that we will have to start again, with simpler, cheaper, downloadable games from independent publishers teaching a lot of us that gameplay is king, and as they sell more games, so the games will get a little bigger, with better AI, etc.

Alternatively, PC gaming will just slowly fade away, with nobody in ten years being able to say exactly when it ended.

I just miss the old days of the Cinemaware games. Great little stories and fun to play. Guess I had more time too. :smurf:

i miss the old point and click game's like mummy tomb of the pharaoh or broken sword

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(thebes @ Sep 23 2007, 04:15 AM) [snapback]312636[/snapback]</div>Perhaps you should try their new games. The do-over of Defender of the crown or something like that (Robin Hood: Defender of the Crown).

I miss the flightsims golden age, approximately from the late eighties to mid nineties. Flight simulation (specially combat..) was a very succesfull genre and I had lot of fun with milestones like Falcon 3.0, Fighter Bomber and Red Baron.

These days this kind of games simply lost its appeal. These days, the most recent jetfighter flight sim, if my memory serves me well, is Lock On: Modern Air Combat (the first one. I coun't Flaming Cliffs as and addon). It's a shame.....well there's even Falcon 4.0 Allied Force, but this genre seems to be paying tribute to the "consolization" of videogames.

I recently submitted a game review for the site. I'll only say that it's a flight simulator of classic status from 1987. :whistling:

In general I would say the focus nowadays is too much on graphics, too little on gameplay (or even basics such as pathfinding, they simply don't test enough) and very little on innovation. It's been ages since we've seen a truly new type of games appearing.

Also, most modern games tend to come with a 100 page manual where it takes you at least half an hour of reading before you can start playing. I love those intuitive games where you could discover at least 80% of the game without any manual. Take for example Transport Tycoon or Alpha Centauri, both games with endless possibilities; you could play these without a manual for ages, and only browse through it for some details to refine gameplay afterwards.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(another_guest @ Sep 28 2007, 08:19 AM) [snapback]313597[/snapback]</div>I disagree. Games don't come with manuals anymore, but in some few page pdf synopses. Games are a lot more easier to learn today than few years back.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Morrin @ Sep 28 2007, 12:00 PM) [snapback]313612[/snapback]</div>Exactly; in the old times the manuals were humongous, some of them including heaps of additional information that wasn't exactly necessary for the game, but would interest the gamer anyway. MicroProse simulators and strategy games were probably the best examples of this.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Morrin @ Sep 28 2007, 10:00 AM) [snapback]313612[/snapback]</div>I disagree. Games don't come with manuals anymore, but in some few page pdf synopses. Games are a lot more easier to learn today than few years back.
[/b][/quote]


I agree Morrin. Back in the day, PC gaming was a 'hobby' - now it is a 'pastime'. PC gamers used to salivate at a new Microprose Simulation like Red Storm Rising with it's 100+ page manual that not only explained the game , but also gave a history of sub warfare, etc! Oh yes, and a keyboard overlay too! Even regular games had decent, well written manuals, like Activision's BattleZone, which had a 100 page manual laid out like a Nuclear Weapons manual, along with coffee cup rings, stains and handwritten notes! Most games today, even if they give you a manual at all, it is usually less than 30 pages and literally just explains how to play the game (sometimes not even that!) Sometimes they do try, so for example, the STALKER manual tries, with a fake ring binder design, first person writing and 'sellotaped' notes stuck over the original text!

So I am completely with you Morrin. PC gaming has declined because of the break in the link between gamers and publishers. Today, with all games coming in the same DVD box with the same type of manual paper, you know, that grey background, 'glossy toilet paper feel' and even the same fonts used, gaming has become a 'commodity'.

The fact that gamers more and more are buying the 'Collector's Edition's', which in many cases are only a couple £/$ more than the original game shows how much gamers old and new want more of an 'experience' in their gaming. And that including the way the game is packaged!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Timpsi @ Sep 28 2007, 10:19 AM) [snapback]313616[/snapback]</div>Exactly; in the old times the manuals were humongous, some of them including heaps of additional information that wasn't exactly necessary for the game, but would interest the gamer anyway. MicroProse simulators and strategy games were probably the best examples of this.
[/b][/quote]

Wow! Thinking the same things at the same time almost exactly! :)

Well, there is at least one thing that has improved over the years.

Remember the 'story journals' that came with old RPGs? Every now and then the game would give you the page and the passage numbers, which you then had to dig up from the journal and read what was happening in the game. This was necessary as the disk space was very limited back then and by moving the lengthy descriptions of events to a booklet they could save up a lot of space on the floppies..

The result was of course that the said games are completely unplayable without the booklet. That is something that will surely never make a comeback. :)

Heh, when I mentioned manuals, I was referring to lengthy pdf's. At least that's my experience.
Back in the days I could play almost any game right away without any need for a manual.

Or take for example Alpha Centauri: the thing has a huge manual but I've only needed it after playing several games, just to figure out the finer details.

Back in the day, games that needed it would give you a nice tutorial.
Good times.

ET:QW is good if you can max out the graphics.

I can only run it on minimum with my 9600 pro so it's pretty crappy.

Just get a BUNCH of demos man ;)

...right.

Getting back to the main subject matter here, I witnessed the same phenomena a few years back: none of the new titles really grasped my attention, the games I tried seemed utterly bland, and the none of the reviews in game magazines sparked any interest in me. It all seemed to be the same junk all over again with the same washed-put graphics and unoriginal gameplay.

Abandonware helped a lot then. Home of the Underdogs, Abandonia, and all the other sites listed at TUOL offered tons of excellent games to play, and from the depths of my own archives I found many classics I had forgotten about. My free time was spent for example playing the original Pirates!, going through the adventure classics, finally playing through the CPC version of Commando, and beating people in International Superstar Soccer 2 online. All this while complaining about the low quality of the recently released games. Then the real life kicked in, and suddenly I didn't have time for playing anything. Having to finish studies, working abroad, courting a spouse and so on all really do have their own impact in gaming. :)

But the break from games was a welcome one, in the end. Today I find myself playing games from the times when everything seemed terrible, and I'm being thoroughly entertained (Europa 1400 is surprisingly good and original, Crimson Skies rocks, the new Pirates! sucks only at the dance sequences, Psychonauts is ingenious, and The Longest Journey and Syberia 1&2 are worthy modern adventures). Some of the brand new games look really interesting and I'm even considering updating my gaming rig to meet their requirements. Either that, or I will invest in a new generation console. Of course there is a lot of quickly-produced utter crap out there too, but it has always been so. A true game connoisseur should be able to see through the ever-present marketing mumbo-jumbo anyway (just like he can judge the games on their gameplay values, instead of just admiring everything (s)he can max out the graphics on).

The point is that it does come back after having a decent break. I believe the reason is that I hadn't really accepted and adopted the major changes in games, and rather wanted to stay with the old times. Also, I had played a whole lot all the way from the '80s, and nothing particularly new was coming out; nothing that I hadn't seen previously. The break helped me to see the new games with fresh eyes, and believe I can respect the new and coming titles on their own good.

Of course I still play the old games, but it seems that the new games are not that evil after all. I believe it was all due just to gaming fatigue, nothing more serious than that. :)

Timpsi - you do make sense, but obviously to use Syberia and The Longest Journey, both from 7-8 years ago, do not make them modern. They are closer to the X-Coms and LucasArts adventures of mid/late 90's (TLJ was released in 1999 in Europe, 2000 in the U.S) than modern 2008 gaming.

And while Psychonauts and STALKER and some others are brilliant, they amount to less than a dozen titles in the last 4-5 years. What makes the retro gaming era so great is that the average PC gamer was buying a dozen games a year, not a dozen every 4-5 years! That's why I spend more time playing retro games like Darklands, because I can finish a modern game (even one like STALKER with its 90 hour+ gameplay) and have to wait 6-9 months for the next title I am interested in!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(humorguy @ Oct 15 2007, 09:27 PM) [snapback]316275[/snapback]</div>I'd like to point out that the TLJ and Syberia remark was about the years when I didn't play new games due to their blandness: "Today I find myself playing games from the times when everything seemed terrible.." A bit clumsy way to put it, but I was pressed on time. :)

As for the brand new, modern titles, there seem to be more and more interesting titles coming out: Bioshock, Viva Piñata, Sam & Max, Paper Mario 1&2, Armed Assault (ArmA), Assasins Creed, Stalker, Supreme Commander, Okami, and a bunch of exciting sequels (Europa Universalis 3, for instance). Granted, not all for PC, though.

Besides, the average gamer was not buying a dozen games a year 'back then' either. A few were bought, and infinitely more were carried home in a rucksack full of floppies copied at the friend's. ;)

Of course there's nothing wrong with sticking on the old titles, as there is a lot of proven excellence in there. It's just that with an open mind it is possible to find plenty of things to play from the more recent games, too.

Timpsi - excuse me but I worked in the games industry from the late 80's to the mid/late 90's and saw lots of trade magazines and retailer numbers, etc. The PC gamer in the early 90's did indeed buy a dozen titles a year. Actually, it was 13 a year in 1994. This was based on much more honest polling that we get today in the console era. Last poll I saw in Computer Trade Weekly in 2006 was that the average PC gamer was now buying 5 titles a year. Two years later and I think we are at 4 per year rather than 6, based on retail sales of titles like Bioshock, STALKER, Supreme Commander, Command and Conquer 3, etc.

There plenty of numbers out there that give clues. One is that the average hit title on xbox sold about 8 copies for every sales of the PC version. Today, Bioshock on 360 sold 16 copies for every PC copy sold. This is as much about the 50% decline in PC game sales in the last 4-5 years as it is about the 360, because the 360 is not doing fantastically better than the xbox in the same time period. In fact, I believe it is doing worse.

This all proves that PC gaming is doing worse than 5 years ago and that the peak in PC sales was in 1995 with a slow decline since, with a little bump around 2000-2001 with a faster decline since then.

Ice burn!

No argument there, Humorguy: PC gaming business is definitely not doing as well as it did back in the early '90s. This is probably mainly due to the saturation of the whole gaming field: PC now has to compete with more than just 'childrens consoles' like the 8-bit Nintendo and MegaDrive were. Xboxes and Playstations offer more complex and adult oriented entertainment and thus attract current/former PC gamers.

However, thanks to the modern consoles, the number of gamers has increased exponentially and the business as a whole is doing pretty well.

As for the number of the games bought, I suppose that is something that varies from country to country. The sales figures of the US should be very different from those of the UK, Australia, or the countries of the continental Europe.

well some titles did good on PC latelly (with sales) but then again there are a lot that didn't do as well.

maybe it's also the problem because with console there is not much room for developing some new engine, some new graphics etc. i mean you have a set maschine with set capabilities. you can't develope something that will require a little better graphics card and a little more ram or disk space simple because console doens't have any. so developer is preety much stuck with those system specification. while at PC they keep trying something new and that is why a lot of hours will go into that. hours that might make games cheaper if they weren't there, hours that could be spent on gameplay instead on the new graphics & game engine that will utilize the dual core CPU and all 768 RAM from the GPU.

with console - you are stuck with what you have... so it might well be that development is easier and maybe even cheaper for console market. which brings more income to the ocmpany if it sell the game at good price.

with pc you need to keep upgrading and buying new to be able to run the game as it was ment to be. development could be more expencive. but then again it produces unique titles with graphics oftem way beyond the consoles.

sure the new PS3 or 360 have cool graphics now, but within 2 years this will be old stuff, while at the same time graphics on PC gamesa will improve.

not to meniton that keyboard offers so much more possibilities...

Well, if you're looking for another gem in the rough, may I reccomend Stubbs the Zombie? Fun premise for a game! :D

I think it's all getting old, while growing we loose the magic... Can u see it, the brain start to absort junks from tv, commercial sh1t and else junk of your era. I yoused 2 it, older games have some point's now games are more special effect's and zillion colour's

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(howmanymegs @ Jan 12 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]274414[/snapback]</div>
I have found the answer! It's the effect called "accoustic feedback"
You know what I mean - take a micro, place in front of speaker and speak loudly into it , so the voice will come out louder of the speaker than you spoke, gets recorded by the mic and outputed even louder, repeat until accoustic noise and crash boom bang, speaker dead - just feedback.

That's why you don't listen to players. They say "owwwwww, Planescape Torment has a video for every 8th level spell and higher! That's awesome!!!!!!!!!"
But in reality they enjoy the multiple walkthrough, intelligent conversations, innovative xp system that doesn't punish for dying and what do they think?

They think publishers, who notice "Ohhh, they liked our videos, let's make some even bigger videos, with better graphics" they think they are dumb! They produce now big stupid games with even less possibilities to walk through, even dumber conversation, and don't have any ideas for any more xp systems. Punish me!!

Or maybe, punish me not, but tell the game-producers to stop listening to muck. You know muck.. you eat apple, and crap muck. muck is the result. Publisher takes muck and thinks, people like muck! They produce more muck.
In some reasoning, it would be better to listen to producers, than to gamers who have "consumed" the produkt and give a feedback.

Those games, that receive a 95% score in PC gamer, don't tell any word about what is sooooo good about this game, instead tell all people in the world what the producers think while making this game!
If Cervat, producer of "Crysis" for example says "I have often eat apples while making Crysis" then other producers would not shuffle their hairs in desperation when sitting in front of PC asking "How the *meep* do I programm innovation?" they would rather say, ok I eat banana maybe I can write better game than Crysis!!

But today the producers have no more spirit. They have to answer themselves "how do I get lots of money by typing nonsense" when they should be thinking about bits and bytes! In the end, you don't know jack about writing a good game when you listen to what people say. You are left with producing another repeated game, graphics even better and crash boom bang, gamer's brain dead - just feedback.

New games also don't take long to beat. Take for example Front Mission. I found the english translated version for SNES. It took me about a week straight to finish the game... Halo 3 on legendary, 7 hours. It's rediculous. Games just focus on good graphics and sound. Nobody focuses on length anymore. BTW I'm only 17, but I remember the good old games that took skill and time to beat. Games are also too easy now-a-days.

I think that the trouble is that games with intriguing play options that allow for multiple solutions to problems and make each solution feel different have been done to death and designers think we are ready for something new :tomato:

Older games were improved by the inability of the designers to get sidetracked by the unimportant aspects of the game. In the absence of really good graphics, they had to make the games fun. Some modern game designers realize that a game should first be fun, then be eye-candy. Crimson Skies was loosely based on the boardgame (with possible RPG add-on) of the same name. It seems to be a 3D arcade shooter designed to accompany an interesting radio play that would make a good Republic serial.

Star Trek: StarFleet Command is based on a popular wargame (Star Fleet Battles) and gets the computer to handle all of the fiddly details that make SFB a mindnumbing bore to the non-afficianado, so that anyone can find it fun.

Stronghold seems to have squarely started with fun, and then added nice graphics.

Flat Out starts with racing cars on roads, and then improved it by modelling collission damage. The added feature of launching a ragdoll when the vehicle sustains a big enough hit to kill the driver (who obviously will never learn to buckle up) manages to add to the fun.

Modern games do not have to suck, they just need the right priorities.

I have to comment that - especially Flatout 2 - had lot of potential, wasted into drain however. Even for arcade racing it was too arcade (sliding cars), too much repeat (same tracks all again), spring assisted opponents (no matter how well you drive, they will catch you). Especially the last "feature" eats immersion from the game and makes you ask, is there any point to even try to drive well? You don't have spring assistant in your car however... unbelieveably stupid.

Someone said flatout games are the pride of finland... I wouldn't. I love arcade racing, but all in flatout games is wrong.

We are at fault too - for not saying 5 hours gameplay for HL2 EP1 and 2 was ridiculous however great the first game was or indeed how good the 5 hours where. This was the start of it all in my book, because then came the Oblivion horse armour for £3, then came Fahrenheit with a dozen hours, and now we have HL2 EP2, we have Dreamfall The Longest Journey, we have COD4: Modern Warfare, we have Bioshock and so many more with sub 15 hours of gameplay for the same full retail price.

I now only buy certain modern games, a lot less in quantity than I did 10 years ago, and they are games with content. Games like Medieval II Total War and Kingdoms, games like Supreme Commander and STALKER, and games like Gothic 3. All these have 80+ of excellent content, not the 10-15 you get in less open world games. It's why I will not buy Crysis because it;s based on levels, but will buy Far Cry 2 as it's non linear with 250 sq km of open world gaming. I will buy STALKER: Clear Sky and Mass Effect (if it comes out on PC!) and I will buy Imperial Total War, all for the same reason.

If PC gamers were particular in what they purchased, we might change the market. Just buy games with content and not linear on the rail 12 hour games and the market will respond. Feel free to get the 10 hour games on ebay 3 months later for £10 - because that's what their worth!

And when there are no open world, non linear 100 hour games available, then get out your retro games, like Darklands, or The Longest Journey or Fallout 1 and 2 - y'know, one of 1,000's of games from the 80's and 90's that have dozens of hours of great gameplaying!!! :)

get shares portfolio if you can get a wall street journal without travelling everyday an hour for it......
im just here because i have no company and no money otherwise i wouldnt play games at all and im about your age....
even though my writing skills let room for different conclusions about my age...
but seriously i shares are allways a cool hobby, it really sucks full time but as a hobby its pretty cool and to origin sequals come on privateer 2 sucked so much compared to privateer 1 and what about wing commander, all ne titles were so cool in the first moment but if we think about the first one was the best of all time... by the way did already have those furball jokes???

yes you are right thats said im getting old NEDA COME ON LETS GREW OLDER TOGEtHER I NEED YOU REALLY"""""""""""""""""""""" getting old is so sad lets get older together.....

by the way games now get really worse... and you know the difference between civ 2 and civ 4 is that programmers were lazy in civ 4 you could read the programm pretty well.... the game was totally straight forward and hat only a really slim illusion of freedom and in reality it all follows a special way and you can predict everything what it takes to beat the comp in that or that way the do and must dos not like in civ 2 were you can let the game develop and still beat the comp..

I'm really pissed off after yesterday's spree of necroposting. Continuing it is not a good idea.
Next time please check the date of last post in the topic you're replying to.