The Hollywood Age of Gaming

Hello all,

I've been wanting to write this post for a while. It's about gaming in present days compared to gaming when I started gaming, which would be 10-12 years ago. I'm a very mild gamer now, I play around 1 hour daily at most and sometimes 2 or 3 hours a day on the weekend (work, girlfriend and sports come first).

So, WELCOME to the Hollywood Age of Gaming!! (HAG for short) What is the HAG? Well, just like Hollywood movies have been mostly recycling of old recipes ad nauseam, I am arguing that current gaming titles are starting to be that way too. I think that the originality of old games (for this post, "old games" means games from around 8-12 years ago) is incomparably higher than the originality of today's games.

So, what was IMO so original about old games? Well, they were unique in some respects. Whether they were HUGE and gave you lots of freedom, like Elite, or they had humor that made you laugh for hours straight (like Fallout 1 and 2, Theme Hospital), or bashed you when you were down (like Z's comments "you are SO crap" when you were about to lose). All in all, I think that all great ideas in games happened more than 5 years ago. Another good example at this is strategy games: the last original game in that genre for me was Total Annihilation, at a time where the best-selling games were so because they had big companies behind them, not because they were better (in this case, Starcraft outsold Total Annihilation although the latter is quite better, especially in multiplayer).

Civilization, Command and Conquer, Heroes of Might and Magic: take these three games, and no recent strategy title is considerably different at it's core from one of them.

EDIT: Another issue is difficulty. Old games were sometimes a challenge (like Theme Hospital), sometimes really really hard (like Z). Of course, when there were difficulty settings you could make the game a piece of cake and impossible. But nowadays, the difficulty is only in how many hits you can take before you die, or how fast the enemy reacts when they see you. And even there, the games are getting easier and easier. When was the last time you said ", this game is really hard"?

To make things worse, there's the DRM issue that has popped up recently. That made me think "games don't have to have great graphics, they have to make me have FUN". So, I will finish Fallout 3 for the story, and because with all it's flaws it's still a good game. But after that, I will play games like:

- Heroes of Might and Magic 3
- Fallout 1 and 2 (for like the fifth time, it never gets old)
- Carmageddon 2
- Total Annihilation
- Z
- Missionforce: Cyberstorm
- The Incredible Machine

The purpose of this post? Well, to start a discussion. I don't expect people to agree with me (especially younger gamers which never heard of the games I mentioned above). I'd just like to hear from people who feel like I do, and people who disagree (maybe I'll learn of a few original recent games that way).

 

I have to agree with you. When I started gaming in the 90s, there were 5-10 innovative titles every year! Even game series like Fallout or Sierra adventure games had some innovation in every title. Nowdays you get 1!!! innovative title a year...the gaming industry has become a real industry, where the only measure is profit...and gameplay does not sell.

Its the same as for movies...story does not sell...visual effects does.

 

Your mention of Sierra reminded me of THE edugame in my opinion: The Incredible Machine. Brilliant game, I have to check whether I can still find it on the internet.

One further note I just remembered (will edit the original post to add it): difficulty. Nowadays games are what I call "always finishable". I.e. no matter how you design your character, no matter how bad you are at the game, you can always finish it. Typically, in RPGs you are way overpowered at the end. I can still remember when I got my Power Armor in Fallout 2, I said "OK, time to raid the Enclave base" (which is the enemy's main base). Well, the two foot soldiers at the front gate took care of me and my followers very easily. I think I managed to cripple the leg of one of them. But nowadays? In Oblivion I could just enter an Oblivion Gate and draw 5-6 monsters at once, and dispatch them easily.

Oh, and despite three or four attempts, I never finished Z. "I am SOOO crap..."

 

Yes, Z was fustratingly difficult.

 

The difficulty thing is really just developers trying to reach a larger audience. Lets face it, no 10 year old wants to waste there time developing a strategy to perfect each level (atleast not anymore). They want results + progress, as soon as a level takes a long time and they have to start over and over again because its difficult, the fun wears off and they will go on to something else. Guys there are higher difficulty levels in games for a reason.

Another thing to realize is that as soon as a new original story/setting comes out in a game, that is one less story that can be used again with someone going "HEY THEYRE JUST COPYING SO AND SO". Thats why over the past couple years the most successful titles have been sequels or expansion packs to already established series (SMG, WotLK, Fallout 3). The most successful original IP's recently have completely original stories (Bioshock, Portal, Deadspace) its just so hard to do something and do it right these days. Like any industry, the people in the gaming industry have deadlines to meet if they work for a major publisher, so if they have to spend more time actually making a playable GAME than a good story, I'd rather have them make a game.

I will admit though that my favorite games of all time are both 8 years old.

 

Graphics always helps. Far Cry 2 is an example of this. While you're driving for 20 minutes to get to your mission, you can enjoy the scenery. It makes the game much more interesting.

 

It's also a sign of the times. Nowadays, developers MUST be profitable above all else. 10-15 years ago, expectations weren't as high - it was easier to be innovative with new challenges. Nowadays games must be optimized across a larger variety of platforms. You have developers fighting copyrights with new tools, consoles, etc.

We've entered into a new realm of realism. Gaming will change with the adoption of virtual reality. You'll see a few titles over the years that are truly innovating but not in the numbers like we've seen in the past. The next big thing is for us to physically be playing the game. We've maxed out controller/keyboard gaming experiences and we need a new method of inputting our gaming desires to the screen. It's coming, hold your horses!

 

You're absolutely right, developers are following a formula. The few innovative games I can think of in the last few years were Portal and the Sims. Spore could have been great, but it failed due to its repetitiveness. Granted, I'm not saying that rehashes of old games are bad - look at the Call of Duty series, which was born from Medal of Honor. Also, the large scale battles of Battlefield 1942/2/2142 are great. What we need is a game with a completely different game mechanic, something we've never seen before.

 

Been gaming since the late 80's and people always say this stuff (back then it was the good old atari days compared to then brand new NES...haha). It's just like taste in music, and even fashion... i do agree to a point that profit is main concern now days, and am hoping after this recession everyone can focus more on the enjoyable things about life. these hard times have been a long time coming, but there will be light at the end of the tunnel.

 

man, good days, good days. me and my school buddies spent countless hours playing this game in our computer class

 

I disagree, the same formula was followed 10-12 years ago as well.

I remember back in 1996-1999 I was playing Diablo, Starcraft, Red Alert, Jedi Knght, Heroes of Might and Magic 3, Fallout, Sim City 3000, FF7, Need for Speed 2, NHL 99, etc. If I recall all of those games had sequels around the same time frame. So basically your argument is flawed because the same formula was in effect 10-12 years ago when you say gaming was 'better'.

Dead Space, Left 4 Dead, The Witcher EE, GRID, World of Goo, Spore, etc are all new IPs that came out this year. There are many more as well, so I dont really understand what you are saying.

 

Everyone just likes to remember fondly of when they "first started" something.

Personally i like to keep my head up and eyes foward.

 

Total Annihlation = BEST GAME EVER CREATED! (and i hated Supreme commander btw)

 

It's true that those games had sequels. But the originals were, well, original. But nowadays, well... what's the big difference between the Quake series, the UT series, the Halo series, etc?

 

I started gaming just before the nes came out. Things seemed better and more exciting as far as gaming because it was all new. As with everything else it becomes increasingly more difficult to be innovative and original in a medium that is getting older. Developers are investing movie-sized budgets of money and time to create new titles now, not thousands of dollars and a few months. Just be thankful you don't have to go to arcades to play the best games anymore. As it sounds in here most of you didn't start gaming until "arcade perfect" was becoming a phrase of the past, so you are taking things for granted. Anyone remember paying $52.99 for the first ninja gaiden and being amazed by the still-picture cinematics?? Things have gotten SO much better over the years, and even with inflation we are paying the SAME OR LESS for new titles. It's kind of like when you were a kid and you scored your first crappy dub of a skin flick, stolen from your friend's dad's closet. It was the best thing you ever saw! Now there's so much of it all over the internet you could really care less most of the time, even though the video and grooming quality are greatly improved.

 

I would replace Command and Conquer with Dune II, but that's just me.

 

Final Strider battle in Half Life 2: Episode 2 when you're defending the base.

That was genuinely hard.

Other than that, not much.

 

I'm not advertising or anything, but you should all check out gog.com

Personally i'm so happy that someone is doing the thing they are.. Which is selling good 'ol classics for under 10$ piece and they are all compatible with Vista.

Check it out.

 

i think it's all about perspective. i remember gaming in my early teens on an Apple IIe (b&w graphics!) and our first IBM clone (EGA graphics, and advertised with a "blazing 1.5 mhz processor" -- should have kept that flyer) back in the day.

i think games from that era were the same as from any era: there would be a few classics, and then a bunch of stinkers.

right now, i'd argue that there's nothing in any era that has come close to Bioshock and topping that will be no easy feat. but will it be topped eventually? yes.

after Bioshock, Sierra On-Line's Space Quest seems a little, um, quaint. but then, so what?

point is to ENJOY being hunted down by wacked out pseudo-humans and little girls with big needles and giant metal machines for friends in a fallen underwater utopia, in gorgeous 1920x1080 definition, DX10 loaded for bear, crazy awesome max FPS and surround sound.

 

Making something original nowadays is near impossible. Everything has been done. And if those original games weren't made then another company would come along a make a similar one anyway.

Also, you only say those games were better because that's what you played as kids, its probably just nostalgia kicking in when you replay them.

Personally, I have to say that Gears 1 & 2 felt like they had a really meaningful storyline along with the Halo trilogy. Or it could just be my lack of imagination and the graphics have to paint the pictures for me so to speak.

I think these day, kids (myself, well I'm 18 now actually) have much less imagination because everything is displayed in front of us we don't need to think for ourselves so much so much :s Humanity is doomed

EDIT: In my opinion BioShock wasn't that great. I only played the demo so I may only have a narrow view of it but all I did was run around Rapture killing crazy humans and I suppose you have to kill those Big Daddy things too as the game progresses.

 

With any industry conventions creep in over time. Whether it's toothbrushes or video games. The original groundbreaking stuff pops up once in a while but mostly everyone follows some variation on an established precedent. This is business, that's how it works. You have a very small percentage of real leaders in any industry.

Since you have been gaming for many years, like many of us here, it's easy to identify the followers from the leaders. But new innovative IPs do come around. They often follow some schematic of an excepted genre but real innovations can happen. Look at the Wii. Nintendo is really trying to do something different. And in doing so is attracting a mostly untapped market (i.e. females). You think my wife would go out and buy a PS3? Pffft, no way. But she bought a Wii, and plays it too! Also bought a DS. And she tells me she see's a handful of girls on the train everyday with DS's. They play brain games, Animal Crossing etc...

Maybe I am going off topic sorry. Point is innovations happen. Sadly they don't always take off though. They are so niche no one wants to spend the money to make more of them for such a small ROI.

K I gotta go pick up the wife now! Bye

 

This is probably half the reason I haven't been into gaming for the last half year or so.

I've played enough FPSs to be sick of them. Unless it has a unique story, I won't be interested. Every FPS coming out is just the same old thing I've done before (with exception of portal). I've played more than enough Strategy games over the years, and don't see anything coming out that catches my attention. I've played plenty of racing games over the years and wouldn't mind picking another one up, but nothing coming out these days seems to be worth the price.I played so much WoW that it would take epic amounts of win to draw me back into that genre. After WoW, there isn't much out there that isn't too similar in design.

As it is right now, I haven't had a game installed on my computer since November, and haven't discovered anything interesting/original/fresh since December of '07. Either games are getting stale, or part of maturing involves losing interest in video games. Maybe a little of both. I have tons of games which are supposed to be A+ titles which I haven't finished because I got bored. I got bored of Mass Effect about 1.5 hours into the game. I quit playing Gear of War halfway through. I stopped playing Rainbow Six Vegas about 3/4 the way through. I think I am sick of typical video game formulas.

 

Nostalgia does play a large role in this analysis. I remember playing The Incredible Machine, Kings Quest, Gizmos & Gadgets, Weather Disaster, etc too. These titles (and the many others I also played) had a massive impact on my development, I credit Incredible Machine and Gizmos & Gadgets with much of my drive to become an engineer as an adult.

That said, I don't believe you take your analysis far enough. Yes, we have hit the age of Hollywood Gaming, but that means much more than you might think. Beside the fact that you haven't mentioned games such as World of Goo, Gary's Mod, and Left 4 Dead, I might also remind the OP that titles such as Halo, Gears of War, Metal Gear Solid and Bioshock (Bioshock especially) have raised the bar in interactive storytelling far past what was possible in the previous decade.

Games such as BioShock go MUCH further and bring in an immense amount of cultural subtext. It took me more than two years to get to the end of Bioshock because of the lackluster beginning, but the character interaction (especially with Andrew Ryan near the end, a CHILLINGLY climactic moment) and development will give you many moments pause if you allow your mind to delve deeper, much as you would reading a particularly interesting novel or watching a masterfully directed movie.

Gaming is finally becoming a real art form. We are in the industrial era of it's life-cycle currently, but we can already see the beginnings of a transition to full fledged Space Age status. Don't worry, the best is yet to come.

 

Lots of people mentioning Bioshock in here. Definitely a landmark in game design. So many people were so upset that it wasn't System Shock 3.. but those folks I think missed what has been said here. The story telling in this FPS game is 2nd to none. The depth of the characters, story, settings, interactions... all of it. From the outside it doesn't seem so amazing; a dystopian, steam punk society under the sea. But the way it is all presented, the big daddy's and little sisters, the many splicers and their unique personalities. You actually want to know how the events came to unfold that were being presented in the game. It all worked so well the way 2K put it together.

This is really what is separating the games of yesterday with the games of today. Not that games didn't have good story telling but look at Doom 3 vs Dead Space. Doom 3 had some good scares but did the story pull me in, not really. It was more just about busting some caps in some demons in space. Whereas Dead Space unfolds and grows like a good book. In addition it has tweaked some of your usual shooter cliches and really pays attention to small details to immerse you in the experience.

Great story tellers like the Half-Life series, FEAR, Mass Effect, etc... Yes the formulas are there, but their stories are well developed and delivered, and the gameplay is actually fun. The cliches stop mattering and the formula gives way to a great experience. One that actually makes me want to play the game multiple times. And to me if the game begs a 2nd or 3rd play through, how can I balk at the fact that it is yet another FPS. Not every game that comes out can do this and I don't expect them too.

 

Granted, the Wii is really innovative and promises to change the landscape of (console) gaming. I should have remembered that.

It is very likely that nostalgia is playing a serious role in my original post (after reading it on the next day, I see that, probably Fallout 3 reminded me of Fallout 1 and 2, and the rest came along). Another factor is probably present as well: in the past year or two, I have had a lot less time to play games, meaning that I try out much less games. I have not tried some of the games mentioned here, so I probably am biased toward old games simply because I played more games back then.

Still,

this pretty much sums up my feeling. Not only in gaming, also in movies and music (haven't bought a CD in real ages, but here it's definitely not nostalgia: I wasn't even born when James Brown was in).

 

Have to agree with the possible stale experiences offered. I got bored of both mass effect and bioshock, both of which are "pretty games" and play well.

 

Exactly! I was not saying that games nowadays are just copies of older games with better graphics (that's hardly true). But it looks like as if the developers have been getting less and less bold on the creative side (exception made to the Nintendo Wii guys, of course, and a few recent games as well). At their time, most games I mentioned had really new ideas (I mean the originals, obviously carmageddon 2 is not very different conceptually from carmageddon 1). Nowadays, it seems that the various FPS, RTS, RPG and so on are like different flavours of ice-cream, yogurt etc: apart from the color and taste, it's basically all the same (again, there are probably a few exceptions).

It's true that some recent games have original ideas (The Sims for example). But I think that the amount of creativity has been going down steadily. And if anything, the enormous power of today's CPUs and GPUs should make the companies take bold moves more often.

I have to say that this is only part of the reason that I have been buying less and less games recently. One other reason is DRM. But yet another one, perhaps more serious, is the trend to make customers beta-testers by force. When was the last time you bought a game and played all of it in its original version? Virtually all old games were fully playable, even though some or most of them had bugs. But nowadays, more and more games have to be patched soon after they come out, because there are serious bugs with them.

By the way: great tip on GOG.com, I will definitely check it out on the weekend.

 

You liked total annilhilation. I loved it and now there an open sourced new version and it looks great. Have a look for yourself http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MpKqQxTURik

Best thing its free and you can change anything you like

 

I think the bottom line is that things were new to YOU back when you started and now like those of us that have been gaming for 20 yrs or more, things are not so new anymore... Many of us could say that YOUR golden age was the hollywood age. good thread though. it's generating some real discussion

 

This might well be the case. I guess I'm getting old and nostalgic

Still, I'm really enjoying the discussion.

 

Wow, it does look absolutely fantastic. If the gameplay is as good as TA was, it sounds like the ultimate RTS. I will definitely look at it during the weekend.

 

I have to disagree with you. 10 years ago you had much more genres of games available. Currently apart from very few, you have only tactical RTS or FPS, no more real adventure or isometric builder games...not even real story based RPGs, like the Baldurs Gate series.

Current RPGs would have been classed hack and slash 10 years ago.

 

Maybe so. One thing I miss from "old" RPGs is making a party. I loved Fallout 2 because I could actually be an "intelectual" kind of character while Sulik and Cassidy wasted the foes if I couldn't talk them out of a fight. Just for fun, I tried to go as a healer in Oblivion. I laughed quite hard after half an hour of gameplay where I basically healed myself 99% of the time in fights, with the remaining 1% being when I actually managed to get a hit on the guy. My girlfriend was taunting me all the time "are you masochist or what? HIT HIM!!!" It was great fun, but well, I don't think it was the developers' intention.

Back to my point: I love having party RPGs. Another thing I miss is tactical games like X-COM apocalypse (another great game) or, later, the UFO: After... series which was plagued by bugs although the story of the first one was great.

 

RPG's have been taken over by MMORPG's. I don't think there is as big of a market for the traditional RPGs because most people (myself included) that played them now play MMO's and really have no time for a single play RPG. MMO's are a dream come true for me. I love spending 50+ hours on a game with out have to replay it (i know MMO is a lot of grinding that could be considered "replaying" but its not starting over like i have to do when i beat most current titles that take 10 or less hours to beat). The only thing better than leveling all your Final Fantasy characters to 99 and crushing NPCs is maxing your MMO toon and crushing actual other players!

 

Yeah, MMORPGs are cool. Unfortunately, WoW relies a lot on grinding, and since I don't have much time for that, I ended up getting Guild Wars which managed a great way to be competitive although you don't have to grind to stay ahead. It actually relies on skill.

 

Yeah MMOs, the idea is stunning...but they are filled with people who have nothing other to do but play all the time and thereby creating a character many times better than you can...side effect: you will be a noob if you are only a casual player. Well, tried it...no thanks.

 

I agree partially with the OP. Not to age myself too much, but I've been computer gaming since 1984 (wow - 25 years of gaming - d'oh!) starting with my Radio Shack TRS-80 MC-10 and later with my Color Computer, PC Compatible, Amiga, and on down the line of "IBM PC Clones" to today.

Games on the early machines had to have more substance and creativity because of the lack of graphics. I remember all the old text adventures, (Zork, Hitchhiker's Guide, etc) and was amazed at how "smart" the AI was too.

Remember that it has only been a little over ten years since the first "true" 3D gaming has become the normal with the 3Dfx Monster 3D card released in 1997. Prior to that it was 2D sprites and efforts like Novalogic's "voxel" technology that used CPU accelerated 3D graphics. And look at Starcraft. One of the most successful games of all time (leave WoW out of this please), and it's 2D!

With all that being said, I feel there is a lot more "crap" game titles out there, but there are still lots of gems. Unfortunately it takes a while for the true unique games to weed themselves through the crap, before they are recognized for being what they are. I don't care much for sequels if they are just to make a quick buck. If that's the case, then just put out an expansion or two for $10. But I think the likes of Red Alert 3, Fallout 3, Doom 3, Fear 2, Age of Empires 3, have all shown that quality sequels can be made.

Considering the state of the economy, however, I think there's a lot more better titles out there. Companies realize they have to have a quality product if they want your money.

Just for the record, my all time favorite games are (in no particular order):

Starcraft (without a doubt)
Descent 2
Civilization
Jane's F/A-18
IL-2 Sturmovik
Quake 3 Arena
Descent Freespace
Splinter Cell (all of em)
Need for Speed Porsche Unleashed
Lemmings
Riddick: Butcher Bay
Battlefield 2
Command and Conquer Generals (+ Zero Hour)

Nothing as of late has caught my attention enough to be one of my favorites. But maybe time will tell.

 

It is true, there may be less titles that are truly innovative and creative these days but that is our fault, sort of. I like fps games, so I buy fps games, so do others so they sell well and devs will make more fps games.

It is an unfair statement saying that there is nothing original or innovative anymore. I find this to be very false, it is true that these games will adopt a style and then evolve from that. Even those games you are referring to probably had pinched the idea from someone or something else first, they were just very well made and turned into classics...

I also recently got a strong urge to play an old classic and a favourite from my earlier days, Everquest. I was better to keep those good memories, good memories. I was disapointed with it more than my memories wanted to accept.

Games have evolved...
There are some very good innovative games already listed here like world of goo, left 4 dead, etc. they are all evolved games... just like company of heroes is a very evolved rts...

 

My first gaming was done on an Atari 2600, when they were the console to get (maybe the only console at the time?). I only say that to give you an idea of which age demographic I fall into. Since not too long after, PC gaming has been my preferred platform almost exclusively.

I agree with the OP in that many of the same concepts are being rehashed over and over. However, I disagree with the notion that that is inherently a bad thing. I'm a RPG/adventure game fan. I really don't mind it when several of the games I play tend to stick to similar concepts and mechanics, as long as they are all enjoyable experiences.

In my opinion, the problem isn't lack of innovation - there is plenty of that happening. The problem is the notion that innovation for the sake of itself is some kind of holy grail.

It's the game experience that is top priority, not how many new concepts, story lines or game mechanics it introduces. *That's* why the games that tend to get it right the first time also tend to enjoy successful sequels.

 

Love that, well said. Change for the sake of change is futile. There has to be good reason for an innovation. Just because it is new doesn't mean it is good.

 

SPORE *cough* *cough*

 

The problem with Spore is that, sure it's a great concept, but it did NOT turn out very well at all.

 

I think Spore just stopped short. They could have done so much more with that game. The concept is fantastic. The finished product just seems too shallow.

 

i am not exactly an old gamer but i have been playing games for the last 10 years or so......

i have to disagree with this point here.....have you played company of heroes? or the total war series (although admittadly that is relatively old). or patrician 3 (old too)? or the europa universalis/hoi series? they are all reasonably different.

i don't mind some of the newer games, but i am very selective as to what i play/buy.......

 

The last game I stopped and said "wow this is really hard" was I Wanna Be The Guy.

 

Welcome to capitalism

 

Sure it stopped short, but the technology created for that game was evolutionary, i was honestly in awe the first time i made a completely wacky creature and he instantly found his center of gravity and his motions were so fluid, too bad the game wasn't more fun.

 

The fun factor of Spore falls off a cliff once you reach Tribal stage. I just kept making a creature in the cell stage and then played the stage after that then stopped. It's my personal opinion that the game has a good concept, but fell on its face in practice.

 

One way to try and get better games out of developers is to give them good feedback on the products they produce. I mean it, email them! Post on their forums etc... I mean don't just complain but give good constructive feedback. Like what was it that the game was missing to be fun to you or add value for you? What did you like, why? Many people probably think this is of no use but coming from a marketing background in manufacturing, companies really do listen (sometimes).

There are many reasons of course for doing or not doing what customers ask for, but it is really the only way for developers (and manufacturers) to give people what they want. They are often too close to the project to see it from a user's perspective. And game testing is not always about the game being fun. It is more about looking for bugs and ways to break the game. Like "walk into every wall you come across and note which one's let you pass through them" that kind of stuff.

 

Oh, you guys reminded me about Z game. It's pretty cool and very hard. It took my friend and me months to complete this game.
By the way, do you know where can I buy or download this game ? I've heard it has a version for windows 95, hasn't it ?
Thanks