EPTAlso, the current model of downloadable titles (especially on consoles) really seems to have spurred a growth of the smaller indie titles (Machinarium, Shatter, Trine, Joe Danger) which definitely seem to be in the same creative vein as many of the classic golden age titles. Personally, I can't wait to see where game is in ten or even five years from now.
Golden Age of Gaming - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Bowdz
United States202 Posts
Also, the current model of downloadable titles (especially on consoles) really seems to have spurred a growth of the smaller indie titles (Machinarium, Shatter, Trine, Joe Danger) which definitely seem to be in the same creative vein as many of the classic golden age titles. Personally, I can't wait to see where game is in ten or even five years from now. | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On July 27 2010 23:30 Redmark wrote: Casual games are not the problem lol. The people who play casual games would not be gaming at all if not for them; we should be thanking Nintendo/Popcap/whoever. The problem is that the big companies are generally not making good games any more. They either try to pander to the hardcore (GRAY! DARK! GRITTY! CUTSCENES!) or have no innovation (WWII shooter XIII). I mostly play indie games now. What? I haven't seen a game that panders to the hardcore in ages. IN fact the first game that does I will be buying without any hesitation what so ever. Games these days focus much more on hollow achievements that take no effort to get instead of making them very difficult so you actually feel like you worked for your achievement. This matches with gaming going mainstream. The general population wants easy satisfaction and easier games provide that. Hell game companies sometimes dumb down games ON PURPOSE to lessen the skill gap between a good player and a bad player (lol SSB Brawl.) You are however correct with indie games flourishing. Those games generally don't have the cooperate influence on them and you get some amazing freaking games out of it... like BRAID. So I'm saying that I agree with the group that says game were generally more difficult "back then"....and before you start about "WELL YOU SUCK IN TODAYS GAMES" I was in a top PvE WoW guild from Vanilla until Ulduar and the game got WAYYY EASIER. Went from 150+ attempts to kill 4hm alone in Naxx 60 to clearing Ulduar in 2 days when it came out. If that doesn't show a reduction in difficult I'm not sure what does. | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On July 28 2010 01:15 Zalfor wrote: you're pointing to being good at WoW as knowledge of gaming? Lol... I'm not disagreeing with your points, but I'm just saying that last part is kinda funny. I know, right? Everyone is in a top raiding guild and got Gladiator 7 times running. Its just that easy. | ||
|
roliax
135 Posts
| ||
Chill
Calgary25981 Posts
On July 28 2010 00:52 Chill wrote: I just saw my 50 year old Ukranian coworker looking at the Futureshop SC2 page. Ok, now I saw him looking at a Pokemon wiki. O_O | ||
|
Befree
695 Posts
| ||
|
Eloderung
18 Posts
On July 28 2010 01:22 Bibdy wrote: I know, right? Everyone is in a top raiding guild and got Gladiator 7 times running. Its just that easy. Not even IdrA has enough APM (Ants Per Minute) to defeat Sim Ant, a game released during the climax of the Golden Age of Gaming. Current day games simply cannot compare to the complexity and depth of games released in the early 90s. | ||
|
Looonski
United States15 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. If it weren't for giant corporations like Blizzard-Activision, making games like SC2 which cost $100,000,000 to develop would never be possible. Remember that in your next hippie rant  | ||
|
[wh]_ForAlways
United States235 Posts
On July 28 2010 01:42 Chill wrote: Ok, now I saw him looking at a Pokemon wiki. O_O Bulbapedia for the win! I wish I had more 50 year old coworkers that were into pokemon and sc  | ||
|
Arcticc
United States203 Posts
On July 28 2010 01:03 NukeTheStars wrote: Anybody who thinks this is the golden age of gaming did not play games in the mid-90s. Also, everyone takes notice of big titles because there's a lot of marketing. Everyone did the same thing with Halo 3 and then everyone stopped caring again shortly after. We're not in a revolution here. I don't think there is any "golden age" and I played a lot of pc games throughout all of the 90s... Someone mentioned it before, but I think nostalgia is swaying a lot of opinions in this thread. | ||
|
thOr6136
Slovenia1775 Posts
 back to the topic, i think it will be a wonderfull age of scII, esport will really grow, it will be televised and so on | ||
|
AyJay
1515 Posts
"rofl you need to mine minerals, that is soooo 2004" | ||
|
Macavity
United States83 Posts
On July 27 2010 10:51 Whiztard wrote: Ah, my TeamLiquid community, I think we are on the verge of a Golden Age of Gaming. For the first time, I'm feeling like as if everyone within my city will at least know the name of Starcraft and I have a feeling that most of them will at least play Starcraft II in one way or another. A couple of months ago, I've had conversations with a couple of teachers (yup, teachers) in my school about Starcraft II, speculating how huge its going to be. I've had similar conversations with other students, and each time I talk about it, I get this feeling as if everything is going to be united together and its going to be good. So what have you noticed about your community ever since Starcraft II was announced? Actually, we are entering the Dark Age of Gaming. The Industry is entering decline that is stunning analysts and investors. Much of PC gaming has collapsed. Many people here may have been too young to remember, but when the original Starcraft came out, it had serious competition. Westwood was at the top of its game. Other RTS games were coming out all over the place. Age of Empires was big. Other high quality PC games were being released when Starcraft was such as Unreal Tournament and Quake III. Starcraft 2 is not so much a 'better quality game', but it sticks out because there are very few quality games today (on PC or console or otherwise). Blizzard's quality output is consistent. It is everyone else that has declined. | ||
|
SCbiff
110 Posts
On July 27 2010 10:55 Half wrote: The golden age of gaming was 92-2004. sorry. You missed it. The last half decade has been a veritable dark age. Maybe we'll see a revival :D. Probably not. I was going to post a similar thing, but I dunno about your dates. Which got me wondering what *my* golden age was. Interesting question, but one thing I am sure of: it isn't now. Of course, I'm sure a lot of it is just that those earlier games came first. The first time you do anything will always be special, so that's always a factor. Still, I find today's games, on balance, to be so derivative and bereft of creativity. It's a shame. One company that hasn't let me down yet, though, is Blizzard Entertainment, so today is indeed a good day. | ||
|
Arcticc
United States203 Posts
On July 28 2010 03:27 Macavity wrote: Actually, we are entering the Dark Age of Gaming. The Industry is entering decline that is stunning analysts and investors. Sources, or just ridiculous speculation? Much of PC gaming has collapsed. Many people here may have been too young to remember, but when the original Starcraft came out, it had serious competition. Westwood was at the top of its game. Other RTS games were coming out all over the place. Age of Empires was big. Other high quality PC games were being released when Starcraft was such as Unreal Tournament and Quake III. You forgot Half-life (1998) which was probably the greatest competition to any pc game after its release and Diablo ii (2000). Besides those, I can smell a strong stench of bias based on your lack of knowledge of anything non-RTS. Shouldn't you rephrase your whole approach from "gaming is in a decline" to "RTS gaming is in a decline"? | ||
|
DarkMatter_
Canada1774 Posts
On July 28 2010 00:27 Eloderung wrote: This quote is pretty much true. Only if you were young and stupid. We were all young and stupid at one point, which meant that at some point in our lives we all thought Sim City 2000 and Super Mario Brothers were the most difficult games in the entire world. Old games often used mathematically impossible difficulty settings as a band-aid fix to their lack or replayability, relative to today's online multiplayer games. But then again, I'm sure that you have a #1 Diamond league SC2 account to back up your claim that games were much more difficult and complex back then. You probably reside in the best WoW PvE guild too and have a seven #1 season PvP titles. I mean, clearly, today's games simply cannot compare to the difficulty and complexity of Sim Ant. Being "young and stupid" has nothing to do with it, given the fact that the games were difficult back then are still insanely difficult. In fact, after becoming used to the modern generation of games, older games feel even more difficult. And how about addressing the point by actually considering the differences in game mechanics and design instead of making a meaningless argument that is based on absolutely nothing? Old games did not often use "mathematically impossible difficulty settings". A simple youtube search of all those seemingly impossible games will prove you otherwise. Also, SC2 and WoW are neither difficult nor complex. And no, I don't need to be good at them, let alone be the best, to make that statement. This may be beyond the comprehension level of some people, but let me try my best to explain it. The challenge in BW, SC2 and WoW comes from its competitiveness. They are not difficult games BY DESIGN. Do you understand the difference? Any game, no matter how simple and straightforward, can be challenging to master in the competitive scene if there is enough competition. Even a game where the goal is to see who can press a single button more times than his opponent within a given time limit can be challenging competitively if you have 10 million people playing it. I find it to difficult to believe that anyone who considers WoW the pinnacle of a complex, difficult game to have any significant experience with pre-00s gaming. | ||
|
DarkMatter_
Canada1774 Posts
On July 28 2010 02:03 Eloderung wrote: Not even IdrA has enough APM (Ants Per Minute) to defeat Sim Ant, a game released during the climax of the Golden Age of Gaming. Current day games simply cannot compare to the complexity and depth of games released in the early 90s. Ofcourse, because the point was that every single game from the 90s is more complex and difficult than every single game from the 00s. Your reasoning skills are truly remarkable. | ||
|
Sprouter
United States1724 Posts
| ||
|
Xanrae
Belgium53 Posts
If it weren't for giant corporations like Blizzard-Activision, making games like SC2 which cost $100,000,000 to develop would never be possible. There is no reason why it had to cost $100M. It's got 3 races, about 35 units and a heaping of balance. An indie company can do that. Dota got the balance right and it was made by a handful of people, for free. Heroes of Newerth is the commercial version, with online functionality that owns the crap out of Bnet2.0 (reconnection, game lists, cross-server play), again created by a small and fairly unknown company. The only problem is that it requires a large playerbase that accepts it as the new standard in competitive gaming. Which is only possible because it has the Blizzard tag (HoN had the 'Dota' tag). ...... The campaign? Starcraft single player is basically Final Fantasy. Cutscenes and more cutscenes and the gameplay value is zero because the AI is intentionally dumb in order to match the mission description. When you are asked to protect a convoy and you have marines to stop zerglings, the AI won't suddenly switch to mass banelings or make creep across the road and plant 10 spine crawlers to counter you because then you'd, like, lose and it would not at all look pretty and realistic. Sidenote: multiplayer objectives would actually add something to the RTS style. | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
On July 27 2010 10:55 Half wrote: The golden age of gaming was 92-2004. sorry. You missed it. The last half decade has been a veritable dark age. Maybe we'll see a revival :D. Probably not. The real Golden age ended before this decade began, around 1998/99. The problem wasn't just PC Gaming dying off, but that game developers have had their heads up their arse for over 10 years now. This is why we're seeing a resurgence of older style games, especially from Nintendo (Every other company always does an impression of Nintendo from just a few years behind). Multiple 2D style games have come out recently, and the 3DS is getting ports of Zelda :OoT, Starfox 64, and plenty others from the real golden age. The PC gaming decline did have some to do with it, but mostly, all the game developers have been going steadily downhill for a while (also big companies have consolidated a lot larger game divisions than they used to have, meaning less real diversity). Even in the days of the N64 and PS/PS2, which still had remnants of the golden age shining through, the ratio of Bad Games>Good Games went down the tubes in that generation. The following generation did keep gaming alive, but it was still failing and falling down. The Gamecube had very little good games, the XBox was sold at a loss for ages and also had few good games, the PS2 dominated them, because of it's backward compatibility, but the beginnings of the downfall could be clearly seen during the PS/N64 Generation. However, what true of today, is that Gaming as a medium has become far more recognized than it ever was. Video Games actually end up on the NEWS!!!!!! CNN no less. Gaming is far more accepted and mainstream than it ever was before. Since developers have been hearkening back to the older days for ideas and games, what I see is a NEW Golden Age on the horizon. It isn't here yet, mind you, but I see it rising from the ashes, much like the Video Game Industry did after the Original Crash in the 80's, with the NES ushering in the beginnings of the Golden Age. History is repeating itself. After a lacking several years in gaming, they have the potential to rise again, and with Gaming being much much more recognized than it ever was, there is definite potential for a New Golden Age in the future. I hope. | ||
| ||
