«

[saibot216]

It's because old games are better and hold a special place in our heart and yeah, graphics have taken over and the games now-a-days suck. And people are too drunk on graphics to realize it. That and multiplayer that gets old fast.

[Scatty]

Originally Posted by Tracker

you'll be literally forced to pay monthly subscription fees to some repititive and uninteresting team-oriented games where you need to pay for every small feature.

Why? There are old games. There are so many of them. And they are lots of fun. There are Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate II, Total Annihilation - Kingdoms, Gothic 1 etc. There are even more, great older Ms-Dos games.
Who needs those new games? I don't.

[Retronator]

That article is fantastic. The first image about sums it up for me. Actually, 4 years ago I've already seen the same image somewhere else.

At the time I was working as a game reviewer and I was browsing through the latest issue of our magazine (Joker, Slovenian gaming mag). It was in 2007 after the Games Convention and we had a big report of upcoming games shown in Leipzig that year.

I was disappointed. Gun, gun, army, battle, gun. It was the same as the image from the article - I was staring down a gun sight in every fucking screenshot. I was getting tired of the industry year after year. So I went ahead and showed what's happening to games. I grouped all the upcoming games from that report by theme - focusing on whether gameplay is on the destructive (FPS, RTS) or the creative side (think SimCity).

Firearms   Other weapons (FRP, fighting)
Sport      Racing
Arcade     Puzzle (thinking, adventures, etc)
Creative

And now I'll show you exactly why we're here. Because 4 years ago, I went to Abandonia to use it as an example, of what old-school gamers like us desire today. I took the top 100 games (by popularity) and again counted how many fall in which category.



I think the results speak for themselves. We're here, because what the industry is offering is way off of what we (perhaps a tiny, dieing segment of gamers) actually want.

I loved me a good shooter back in the days, but what I hate about today is that we're forcefed a shooter after shooter after shooter (with a new year of EA Sports games and Need for Speeds as a side dish). Fuck that.

[Eagle of Fire]

I like how you didn't take the generalized genres into account but went with other descriptions like "creative" or "sport" instead.

Because, let's face it, the big gun companies did destroy the meaning of a lot of those genres and generalized it into what they wanted them to.

Branding Diablo II as a RPG or Red Alert as a strategy game rings to mind...

[Pex]

When I saw the topic title I thought it was one of those deep discussions about existance and meaning of life. Well, I was close enough

Lot's of fine arguments already mentioned and good old 'to each his own' can be applied again. So, I'll answer the question:

I'm here because I loved playing video games since my first C=64 back in early eighties and I found so many great games on this site that I loved at some stage but lost due to different circumstances, plus many more that I never got a chance to play (even while groving up in the country where pirate games were advertised in newspapers ). I post in this forum because there are so many members that share the same passion for the old games and I had many great discussions regarding different games.

Saying that, I still like so many new games, too. For example, once I finish checking this site and a few others I regurally do once I come home from work and have a dinner, I'm going to play Disciples III till bed time.

[marko river]

Originally Posted by Pex

even while groving up in the country where pirate games were advertised in newspapers .

Wow, what country is that? Does it still exist?

I hate old games, I'm here strictly for reviews and PoEs so I can satisfy my animal need of dominance which I can't do in real life because I suck big time
Aaaand old games are in general more creative and fun than the most of new ones. But there are still visionaries out there that need our interest to survive... That's hope. And I was thrilled to see game like Portal. They actually created new kind of logical game thanks to new technologies. Like it couldn't be done before. Like they didn't use new technology for another improved copy of something. Yeah, it's one among million, but that just means we should tell others about those rare new games that are actually good.

Originally Posted by Scatty

Let's see...
Neverwinter Nights - around 2002
Baldur's Gate II - 1999
Total Annihilation - Kingdoms - 1999
Gothic 1 - 2001
Unreal (the very first) - 1998

By today that would be old games

Well, you might wanna check the newest Call of Duty... in 10 years, I mean, it will be old then :P
I agree that games after 1995 can be considered "new", but still you named a good titles.
And Unreal 1998 is NOT the very first. It is the first in FPS series. Hail to the VERY FIRST.

[Retronator]

Remember those graphs I posted earlier? I made a whole illustration and video blog around them:



Here's the final illustration:

[Tracker]

Actually, 'creating' games aren't that rare. Think of stuff like minecraft. And by the way, developers had always wanted to create stuff like we have today, they just lacked the necessary technologies, that's why there were no sports games (which isn't true, just take a look at our sports section). But I see your point though, we barely have any games which demand thinking - like old RPGs. Today's RPGs need no thinking either. Good luck with your project.

[Retronator]

Yeah, since 2007 when I was initially thinking about this, things have moved for the better. I do mention Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress in the video itself. But in 2007 it looked quite grim to me (no AppStore, no GOG, hardly the diversity you can find today on Steam). The last Tycoon game I played at the time was The Movies (an amazing game thankfully) and there was not even a (good) SimCity game to look forward to. Spore was the only AAA creative title I played since then, all the rest (Mincraft, DF) came from indie developers. It's a start, but apart from iOS Tycoon games, which are probably on the same cloning/theme-changing selfdestruction path of late PC Tycoons, still there's not as diverse offering as in the 90s:

• building a Rube Goldberg machine (The Incredible Machine series)
• racing on tracks created by yourself (Stunts)
• building a vast transport system (Transport Tycoon)
• building a city (SimCity series)
• running a car factory (Detroit)
• building roman cities (Caesar series)
• building real estate with competing firms (Constructors)
• becoming an ant! (SimAnt)
• building a skyscraper (SimTower)
• building railroads (Railroad Tycoon)
• building a pizza restaurant and designing pizzas (Pizza Tycoon)
• running a business (Free Enterprise)
• settling on new land (Settlers series)

And your argument about technology just makes me wonder - if all these games could be made back then - imagine what developers with a bit of ingenuity and love for innovation & creativity could come up with today.

[Eagle of Fire]

Maybe, but "Phun" is not really a game but a simulator. That's not really the same thing because if I were to play with "Phun" it would feel more like work or a chore to me than having fun. Which is the normal reason to play games.

I agree that some games like Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress are really going in the right direction... But those games are indies and are not going to get anywhere before years because normal publishers simply either don't want to go in that direction or don't want to take the risk to try to go in that direction. And even then, I know nuts about Minecraft... But Dwarf Fortress is turning out to be yet another huge game in which you absolutely have to run the latest fresh out of the factory monster computer to be able to run it well...

I really love your video and your little graphic. This stuff has to be published to the general public more I think. I'll start by ninja-ing them for myself and place them on display on my Facebook account.