EPTRTS is definitely pushing into mainstream in non-Korean countries.
Golden Age of Gaming - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Lennon
United Kingdom2275 Posts
RTS is definitely pushing into mainstream in non-Korean countries. | ||
|
arnold(soTa)
Sweden352 Posts
| ||
|
TheAngelofDeath
United States2033 Posts
 | ||
|
MavercK
Australia2181 Posts
but thats me. | ||
|
Tazza
Korea (South)1678 Posts
| ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On July 27 2010 11:38 arnold(soTa) wrote: well the geeky children who were bullied because of their love for gaming and computers have grown up and now run the world, natural development ! love it. tbh I don't know a single socially awkward kid who grew up to be a CEO. Sure, nobel prize winning physcists, game designers, w/e, but generally not CEOs ;o. Being able to communicate is a huge part of the job. On July 27 2010 11:36 Duban wrote: Good point, but isn't one of the big underlying causes of that the fact that modern games are created by large groups working under a corporate concerned purely by profit rather than a small team that comes to their Manager/CEO, who him/herself was frequently a gamer/programmer, with a good idea and a direction? Wasn't it MW2, or was it another game, that had half of its programming team fired because they refused to turn the game into a yearly release. Ugh I hate debates like this. Lets just say we're both right and that they both contribute to the current disaster that is the game industry ok :p? | ||
|
Skee
Canada702 Posts
On July 27 2010 11:42 Half wrote: tbh I don't know a single socially awkward kid who grew up to be a CEO. Sure, nobel prize winning physcists, game designers, w/e, but generally not CEOs ;o. Being able to communicate is a huge part of the job. I don't think Bill Gates was very popular when he was a kid. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On July 27 2010 11:44 Skee wrote: I don't think Bill Gates was very popular when he was a kid. Well...except bill gates :p. | ||
|
Eloderung
18 Posts
There are a few exceptional gems like Doom, EQ, and SC1, but being that these games pretty much created their respective genres, that's to be expected. Lot of bad games, few good games, small handful of truly amazing games - how exactly is that different from today? Being the first in its time != being the best for all eternity. I could maybe agree about console games but definitely not PC gaming. | ||
|
sikyon
Canada1045 Posts
There are not as many games that cater to hardcore gaming nerds such as many of us here on TL.net (starcraft II is one of the few) but I think that is a sign that the industry is growing and reaching beyond a tiny player base - not the other way around. | ||
|
MavercK
Australia2181 Posts
On July 27 2010 11:54 Eloderung wrote: I don't really see how the late 90s was the golden age of gaming. I thoroughly enjoyed games at the time (War2, just about everything Maxis put out, Descent, Quake, old Zelda games etc.). When I go back and play most of those games, they're ridiculously easy, simple and straight-forward. Amazing for the time, sure, but I don't see any games in the 90s that even came close to matching the enjoyment I've gotten out of Warcraft 3 / WoW / HL2 / TF2 / SC2. There are a few exceptional gems like Doom, EQ, and SC1, but being that these games pretty much created their respective genres, that's to be expected. Lot of bad games, few good games, small handful of truly amazing games - how exactly is that different from today? Being the first in its time != being the best for all eternity. I could maybe agree about console games but definitely not PC gaming. doesn't sound like you didn't play any of the amazing RPGs on SNES. Chrono Trigger, Terranigma, Secret of Mana, Early Final Fantasy's, etc etc. On July 27 2010 11:58 sikyon wrote: I don't think gaming is dying at all. Look at world of warcraft for all the proof you need. For all it's faults, you can't deny that it has monumental achievement as a way of bringing people who would not otherwise play video games into an online RPG. There are not as many games that cater to hardcore gaming nerds such as many of us here on TL.net (starcraft II is one of the few) but I think that is a sign that the industry is growing and reaching beyond a tiny player base - not the other way around. most people who play WoW. is the first and last video game they'll play. likewise it's probably destroyed most peoples taste in gaming. had a guy come into my shop the other day and say starcraft 2 was a disappointment because it was like all those old games and not an MMO like WoW. i basically mentally slapped the shit out of him. but these are mostly the type of people who play WoW. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
had a guy come into my shop the other day and say starcraft 2 was a disappointment because it was like all those old games and not an MMO like WoW. i basically mentally slapped the shit out of him. but these are mostly the type of people who play WoW. Not really. A poll here showed that 50% of this site plays or played WoW, with 1k+ sample size. | ||
|
Triik
Canada51 Posts
On July 27 2010 11:40 MavercK wrote: actually think except for a few exceptions the gaming industry is going down the toilet and i'd like nothing more than for the market the crash and crash hard. giant corporations like activision wouldn't survive. people like kotick would move onto more profitable industries. All that would be left is gamers making games they want to make. not business men making a giant profit. but thats me. Ya cuz any company can just whip out 10-20 million to make a game. Corporations are formed for the purpose of being able to pool that kind of money together, yes this means they expect returns from it but you cant have the best of everything. | ||
|
DarkMatter_
Canada1774 Posts
On July 27 2010 11:54 Eloderung wrote: I don't really see how the late 90s was the golden age of gaming. I thoroughly enjoyed games at the time (War2, just about everything Maxis put out, Descent, Quake, old Zelda games etc.). When I go back and play most of those games, they're ridiculously easy, simple and straight-forward. Amazing for the time, sure, but I don't see any games in the 90s that even came close to matching the enjoyment I've gotten out of Warcraft 3 / WoW / HL2 / TF2 / SC2. There are a few exceptional gems like Doom, EQ, and SC1, but being that these games pretty much created their respective genres, that's to be expected. Lot of bad games, few good games, small handful of truly amazing games - how exactly is that different from today? Being the first in its time != being the best for all eternity. I could maybe agree about console games but definitely not PC gaming. I disagree completely. Games were much more difficult back then, more complex and anything but straight-forward. When it comes to difficulty, just compare the shooters from the 90s with today's shooters. Remember how unforgiving Doom 2 was on Nightmare difficulty? Nowadays, the standard is regenerating health and cover systems, which basically boils down to the following: Fire off a round of ammo, get back to cover and let your health regenerate, and repeat. In some shooters, it's not even possible to die (see Prey and Bioshock). Compare that with Doom 1 and 2, where you're desperately trying to fend off wave after wave of monsters coming at you from every direction. The same point can be made about other genres as well. Compare platformers such as Rayman 1 and Claw with any modern platformers. RPGs nowadays have level-scaling which makes it impossible to stumble upon a dungeon that could pose a threat to you even if you're lowly level 1 fighter, meaning there is no danger and risk in exploration, essentially killing all the excitement. For competitive online play, you had BW and CS that have yet to be beaten in their respective genres. As for complexity, one of the biggest criticisms about modern gaming is that everything is being dumbed down so I'm not sure where you got the idea that they're more complex. Even most sequels released in the 00s were dumbed down versions of their 90s counterparts. Compare HL2 with HL1, Bioshock with System Shock 2, Deus Ex 2 with the original, Thief 3 with Thief 1 and 2, Fallout 3 with FO 1 & 2. The list goes on and on. If you want me to explain exactly how they're more complex, I'd be happy to indulge but I think it should be fairly obvious to those who've played those games. There's also the fact that more "complex genres" were much more popular back then. 4X games for example. Same thing goes for games being straight-forward. Nowadays, games hold your hands the whole time. You have quest compasses in RPGs that tell you exactly where to go through a visual pointer, because deducing the location of your goal through common sense and basic reading comprehension is apparently too difficult to handle for most modern gamers. | ||
|
showbiz
United States66 Posts
| ||
|
DarkMatter_
Canada1774 Posts
When people say gaming is dying, they don't mean that it's dying as an industry or a business. But the creative flair that was so common in the golden era of gaming, the soul and passion that went into game development, all that is either completely gone or simply overshadowed by corporate greed. Nowadays, game design revolves around what is standard and trendy, whereas back then, it didn't matter how completely wacky or crazy the idea was, someone would be willing to turn into a game. | ||
|
Diaspora
United States140 Posts
| ||
|
Momentum
United States3 Posts
When you're a kid playing a game for the first time, everything is new. The entire design of an RTS, RPG, FPS is brand new to you. It's easy to point to the games you remember as a kid and wonder why the games today don't capture you like they used to. On the other hand, I'm still waiting for a single player story that grabs me like BG2.  | ||
|
potchip
Australia260 Posts
However golden age is not about the visual though, but about ideas and passion. How many games today you can say the developers has put passion into the game? So many special things that other than game play set a game apart: the sound track of Red Alert, the cut scenes of C&C, story of Monkey Island. Do you know with Eldar Scrolls, Daggerfall, from a team of a dozen developers, they hired 2 full time writers just to populate the contents of BOOKS (and books has no purpose in the game play or plot, they are just things you can find in shops and dungeons to read) in the game? All these people that raved about Oblivion, the fact is its predessessor was a much deeper, all-encompassing world (size wise as well!) except the graphics and action elements. Such details may escape 95% of the gamers, yet it represents the love the developers put into their project, like how you have a pet hobby and you keep improving it for the sake of improvement, not just looking at bang for buck at every corner. I felt those whilst I was a teenager I can feel the passion in games, despite average graphics, but games today no longer give me this feeling. I may be wowed by the graphics, but the writing and depth is just not there. | ||
|
DarkMatter_
Canada1774 Posts
On July 27 2010 13:26 Momentum wrote: I think there's a lot to be said for the power of nostalgia. When you're a kid playing a game for the first time, everything is new. The entire design of an RTS, RPG, FPS is brand new to you. It's easy to point to the games you remember as a kid and wonder why the games today don't capture you like they used to. On the other hand, I'm still waiting for a single player story that grabs me like BG2. Not really, because there are obvious differences in the design philosophy behind modern games compared to older games. Nowadays, gaming is about who can create the most refined and polished product with the best production values. Back then, games were all about creativity and innovation. Even when a bunch of games were all very similar in terms of their gameplay, they found some other way to stand out and be creative in their own way. For example, consider the shooters Duke Nukem, Blood and Redneck Rampage. They were all very identical in terms of their gameplay mechanics but despite that, they all managed to be incredibly memorable in their own right due to their creative premises and styles. On the other hand, nowadays it's about which generic space marine has the most detailed looking armor and the most realistic facial animations. | ||
| ||
