| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Whiztard
United States227 Posts
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? | ||
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
It's awesome. | ||
|
Bob300
United States505 Posts
Edit: I used facebook thingy to find friends and about 35 of them were in the beta. | ||
|
Eeeegor
Australia809 Posts
 Can't wait to have a bunch more peeps to share the game with | ||
|
Bairemuth
United States404 Posts
On July 27 2010 10:53 Jyvblamo wrote: It first hit me when my CS prof asked how many people in the lecture were in Beta and around 20% of the people raised their hands. It's awesome. CS = ? For some reason all I can think of is Counter-strike  | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
CS = ? For some reason all I can think of is Counter-strike Computer Science. | ||
|
Bairemuth
United States404 Posts
On July 27 2010 10:55 Half wrote: The golden age of gaming was 92-2002. sorry. You missed it. Computer Science. haha of course, now I feel dumb. It's just when I'm on a gaming site my mind automatically thinks CS = counter-strike with no alternatives. | ||
|
Intropy
Canada92 Posts
On July 27 2010 10:53 Jyvblamo wrote: It first hit me when my CS prof asked how many people in the lecture were in Beta and around 20% of the people raised their hands. It's awesome. HOLY SHIT your school teaches Counter-Strike?! | ||
|
bITt.mAN
Switzerland3693 Posts
You hear them and smile, because you know that they're discovering what you've know for years, and if you talk to them about it they'll treat you like ur an ass that doesn't know anything | ||
|
xiaofan
United States513 Posts
--__--'' | ||
|
Duban
United States548 Posts
On July 27 2010 10:53 Jyvblamo wrote: It first hit me when my CS prof asked how many people in the lecture were in Beta and around 20% of the people raised their hands. It's awesome. I wish my classmates were that cool. None of the friends I asked were that interested, and yes i'm a CS major too. I did manage to find a few online friends I played Empire Earth 2 with years ago and got them interested. | ||
|
DarkMatter_
Canada1774 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. This. The golden age of gaming is long gone. The fact that gaming is becoming so popular and widespread in mainstream society is great for the prospects of e-sports, but the quality of gaming, as a whole, is absolutely atrocious compared to the 90s. | ||
|
potchip
Australia260 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. Computer Science. The decline revolves around PC gaming, not gaming in general. I would even say '94-'01, with the true peak around '96-'99. So many genres are now EXTINCT. As in, disctinct genres, not the present day 'mesh-mash' of the remaining genres and calling it new. I blame 3D graphics cards, the tech bubble that burst and the subsequent rationalisation of the whole industry where small developers were swallowed up by big, and profit driven corporations. It was once upon a time when PC games, with the combo of keyboard and mouse offer possibilities not available at consoles. Nowadays most 'PC games' can be easily ported to any console with 10 buttons, that's how games are 'designed' now. PC gaming is dead. | ||
|
junemermaid
United States981 Posts
Everyone but a few people I know are getting SC2. With diablo 3 & guild wars 2 on the horizon as well, the next decade is looking to be pretty great. | ||
|
Duban
United States548 Posts
On July 27 2010 11:04 DarkMatter_ wrote: This. The golden age of gaming is long gone. The fact that gaming is becoming so popular and widespread in mainstream society is great for the prospects of e-sports, but the quality of gaming, as a whole, is absolutely atrocious compared to the 90s. I agree although 2004 seems a little bit late. I would pit the end of the golden age of consoles/computers near 2000, with the handheld market making it a few years longer, maybe it made it to 2004. The problem isn't that the quality itself is bad it's just games as a whole 15 years ago had something like 10-15 people working on them, if that. The low number of people meant that each person had something to add to the team and each person was allowed, encouraged even, to be creative with their work. These days you have games just being created by giant 50+ teams. Each person has a very narrow view of what they're working on and the game as a whole has a more corporate attitude, it needs it to coordinate that many people. Its just something deep inside gaming died because of it. The content of the game would be better with a small team but lets face it. Who's going to buy a game they perceive as low-quality. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On July 27 2010 11:06 potchip wrote: The decline revolves around PC gaming, not gaming in general. I would even say '94-'01, with the true peak around '96-'99. So many genres are now EXTINCT. As in, disctinct genres, not the present day 'mesh-mash' of the remaining genres and calling it new. I blame 3D graphics cards, the tech bubble that burst and the subsequent rationalisation of the whole industry where small developers were swallowed up by big, and profit driven corporations. It was once upon a time when PC games, with the combo of keyboard and mouse offer possibilities not available at consoles. Nowadays most 'PC games' can be easily ported to any console with 10 buttons, that's how games are 'designed' now. PC gaming is dead. I like to say PC gaming will never die, but PC games died years ago. I agree although 2004 seems a little bit late. I would pit the end of the golden age of consoles/computers near 2000, with the handheld market making it a few years longer, maybe it made it to 2004. I originally put in 2002, but then I realized that the advent of high rez 3d brought a bunch of very innovative or competitive titles for the PC like ut2k3, WC3 or Vampires Masquerades, games I thoroughly enjoyed I guess 04 is really late, at that point it was in heavy decline, but still not the current "dark age" so to speak. I can count the genuinely good games made in the apst five years on one hands and still make a sandwich with that hand. The problem isn't that the quality itself is bad it's just games as a whole 15 years ago had something like 10-15 people working on them, if that. The low number of people meant that each person had something to add to the team and each person was allowed, encouraged even, to be creative with their work. These days you have games just being created by giant 50+ teams. Each person has a very narrow view of what they're working on and the game as a whole has a more corporate attitude, it needs it to coordinate that many people. Its just something deep inside gaming died because of it I disagree. The issue is drive to expand the game industry by focusing on accessibility above all else. | ||
|
taruts
New Zealand41 Posts
Here in New Zealand, the general population is just not as technologically or entertainment-wise savvy as ppl in the USA and elsewhere. *sighs* | ||
|
DarkMatter_
Canada1774 Posts
The standard of gaming is going to be something like this within the next 5 years: | ||
|
Duban
United States548 Posts
On July 27 2010 11:15 Half wrote: I disagree. The issue is drive to expand the game industry by focusing on accessibility above all else. 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. | ||
|
taruts
New Zealand41 Posts
On July 27 2010 11:27 DarkMatter_ wrote: BTW, to those who think we're entering a new golden era of gaming, I think you all need to look outside of SC2. SC2 will be a good game and everything but it doesn't represent what is in store for the future of the gaming industry within the next 5 years. The standard of gaming is going to be something like this within the next 5 years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBPB8CANlLU&feature=related Possibly gimmicking gaming, but not hardcore/competitive gaming. | ||
|
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. | ||
|
hunter3
United States155 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. Not really, the first game I played was Super Mario Bros and Duck Hunt on NES. I ran Warcraft and Wolfenstein off MS-DOS. Good games, sure, but the best games and genres of all time definitely ran their course during the 90s. NES platformers and SNES role players don't have any equals today. On topic, there were probably hundreds, maybe thousands of little games on the PC. Many you could play side-by-side with a buddy on the same keyboard. 2D graphics and no cinematics, but their difficulty and fun factor will probably never again be matched. As video games got more popular, it's pretty essential that they dumb it down for the masses if they expect to survive as businesses. It happens to anything that gets popular, they lose what made them originally enjoyable. It's a cultural phenomenon, not the designers' fault. http://www.hiwiller.com/2010/04/29/if-mario-was-designed-in-2010/ | ||
|
vesicular
United States1310 Posts
On July 27 2010 10:55 Half wrote: The golden age of gaming was 92-2004. sorry. You missed it. It was actually the early 80's. Sorry. You missed it. There will never be another time like that (before the crash). | ||
|
cucumber
United States116 Posts
| ||
|
Zombo Joe
Canada850 Posts
Most them aren't even worth playing because they aren't fun because its a copy of some other game we have all been playing for a long time. You know like how every FPS released today is a Counter Strike clone. | ||
|
waffling1
599 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? retitle thread: golden age of starcraft... | ||
|
WarChimp
Australia943 Posts
On July 27 2010 11:24 taruts wrote: This is definitely not my experience although I wished it was. Here in New Zealand, the general population is just not as technologically or entertainment-wise savvy as ppl in the USA and elsewhere. *sighs* I agree with this statement its so sad....  | ||
|
LeCastor
France234 Posts
Also here in France cybercoffees are fewer and fewer. It's the golden age of online gaming. No more people shouting and supporting you around when you play | ||
|
Thaddaeus
Germany107 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. Computer Science. One call it Counter Strike, the other calls it Computer Science Its the same of course Eidth btw: In my company we have lots of SC2 players also | ||
|
FireBlast!
United Kingdom5251 Posts
I'd define it as that magical, irretrievable few years during puberty where you were young and naive enough to have ridiculous drive, patience and passion (not to mention the TIME) to immerse yourself in set number of quality cultural milestone games and old enough to have the awareness to appreciate that youd never get the chance for such simple, pure fun ever again as times change. For me the release of SC2 is a very special cultural event on the scale of which the medium rarely enjoys but it is far from enough to usher in a "Golden Age." 23 years old, with life and its wonderful adventures and pitfalls ahead the release of SC2, the commotion and discussion around it is exciting but it will never compare to running home every night after school to play shitty 1v1 Lost Temple and stream gritty quality OSL matches featuring Boxer and Yellow on my modem. | ||
|
thesickest1
United States25 Posts
On July 27 2010 13:04 showbiz wrote: The "golden age of gaming" was whenever you were a kid. +1 | ||
|
Santriell
Belgium151 Posts
| ||
|
xenocide.psv
United States25 Posts
| ||
|
sikyon
Canada1045 Posts
On July 27 2010 12:00 MavercK wrote: 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. Sorry buddy but you're going to have to back up those extraordinary claims with some stats. The plural of anecdote is not statistics, btw. | ||
|
CCGaunt
United States417 Posts
| ||
|
EnderCN
United States499 Posts
Doesn't matter, games are still fun and most of what you consider the golden age is indeed going to be nostalgia. | ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
| ||
|
~Maverick~
United States234 Posts
| ||
|
sikyon
Canada1045 Posts
On July 27 2010 22:56 EnderCN wrote: By the mid 90s gaming was already heading the wrong way. Titles like Starcraft, Age of Empires, the Ultima games, Civ, Lode Runner, Sim CIty, Tetris, Doom, Zelda etc are better than pretty much anything that came out mid 90s or later. Titles like Starcraft anything that came out mid 90s or later. Starcraft mid 90s or later The first game of the StarCraft series was released for Microsoft Windows on 31 March 1998 Age of Empires October 15, 1997 Civilization II February 29, 1996 Yep. Those mid-late 90's sure did suck. | ||
|
Ganondorf
Italy600 Posts
| ||
|
Redmark
Canada2129 Posts
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. | ||
|
JrK
United States283 Posts
| ||
|
Herculix
United States946 Posts
| ||
|
TitCriss
Canada39 Posts
Anyway SC2 would be a great game, I can't wait. | ||
|
EppE
United States221 Posts
I don't believe the Golden Age was when you were a kid, I think it was simply your first game of that genre. Now any game I play it feels just like a copy or clone of that game I played 10-15 years ago so at it's core, I'm already tired of it. To me EverQuest was one of those games for me. It was unlike anything I had ever played and every MMO since then has just been a modified clone of that. I think the first girl friend analogy is very accurate with video games. When you have nothing to compare it to, no matter how shitty, the first one is always special. For popularity, I think this may be the Golden Age... perhaps Bronze Age would be a more accurate description. SC:BW was the Stone Age of eSports Gaming and with any luck SC2 will push us up a level. I still think that eSports and gaming acceptance in general has a long ways to go. | ||
|
Ricjames
Czech Republic1047 Posts
| ||
|
UnPhazed
United States4 Posts
| ||
|
Eloderung
18 Posts
On July 27 2010 13:04 showbiz wrote: The "golden age of gaming" was whenever you were a kid. This quote is pretty much true. I disagree completely. Games were much more difficult back then, more complex and anything but straight-forward. 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. | ||
|
onmach
United States1241 Posts
That said there have been genre shifts as gaming became more mainstream, and some franchises have sort of gone that route and suffered. Some depth has been lost as the demand for things like voice acting replaced text boxes. Mostly this is just a case of people remembering things being better than they were. I loved thundercats and GI Joe as a kid. But they weren't good. They were crap compared to what is out now. Even the lamest kiddy anime on the cartoon network is better than the best stuff I watched as a kid, and the same is true of games. | ||
|
danson
United States689 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. qft. and it makes me rage when people say shit like "pc gaming is dead" when they are ON A FORUM DEDICATED TO PC GAMING. Obviously if your theory was true you'd be one hell of a worthless human being, spending all day on a forum of a "dead" style of entertainment. grr. negative dumpsters are negative. | ||
|
LeCastor
France234 Posts
Creativity is gone with 16 bit consoles. | ||
|
Arcticc
United States203 Posts
It just seems like you all base your opinions on Starcraft. The 'era' of Starcraft. The mechanics of Starcraft. I get that this is TL and it should be expected to some degree, but come on... PC games going to shit because they aren't exactly like Starcraft 1? Give me a break. I had fun with PC games before Starcraft (UO had plenty of players), during Starcraft (competitive Counter-Strike) and after (WoW). Not to mention the countless games inbetween and during those periods. If you need a challenging, hardcore game, head over to Darkfall. I hate always reading the same view repeated over and over. Gaming industry is dying. What the hell? It's flourishing. Look at Starcraft 2 as your most immediate example. | ||
|
harky
98 Posts
That said I think adding SC2 might finally draw things back towards the PC side. The scene outside of Korea has been dominated by console games ever since the arcade style crashed out in the late 90s. Even the shooter scene in the US right now is dominated by console games, which is pathetic and wrong. I don't care how good you think Halo and GoW are there are a lot of 'pros' in those games that are horrible, horrible shots simply because of the lower frame-rates and poor control schemes. Meh, I say. Meh! Man... I'm getting old. | ||
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
| ||
|
Armsved
Denmark642 Posts
On July 28 2010 00:40 danson wrote: qft. and it makes me rage when people say shit like "pc gaming is dead" when they are ON A FORUM DEDICATED TO PC GAMING. Obviously if your theory was true you'd be one hell of a worthless human being, spending all day on a forum of a "dead" style of entertainment. grr. negative dumpsters are negative. Yes sir, its all these angry linux nerds who are also claiming they will boycot Sc2 because the skill cap is waaay lower than BW. It is also these people that should stop being so goddamn negative. I mean, why would gaming companies suddenly start making worse games? "Guys we need to make more money, make worse games now and do not try and make this game work as an esport, EVER!" Just because there's 50 people working on it doesnt mean they are making worse games. I mean wtf, how do you people come to these conclusions out of thin air "when 15 people work on a game it will become better since they have more responsibility". Im sure people could argument that 50 people makes better games than 15 people aswell. Look at how balanced Sc2 is right now at release, they are obviously trying to cater the hardcore gamer just as much as the casual. I really think blizzard wants this to work as an Esport. | ||
|
e4e5nf3
Canada599 Posts
| ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
| ||
|
NukeTheStars
United States277 Posts
| ||
|
johanes
Czech Republic2227 Posts
| ||
|
johanes
Czech Republic2227 Posts
| ||
|
Zalfor
United States1035 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. 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. | ||
|
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
Calgary25980 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. | ||
|
Denarius Jay
42 Posts
| ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 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. Major Props to you good sir, because Sim Ant is one of the greatest games ever made. Ever. Came on a 3 1/2 Floppy Disk, and was more challenging to beat than the original Starcraft. Edit: Also, everyone should check out DarkMatter_'s post on page 2. Very well done. All of them. +100 respect points Oh, and for those people talking about how games just seemed better and bring up SimCIty 2000. Seriously? The guy that made it, has only made complete bombshells since (except the sims). Those people saying that games only seemed better and using SimCity 2000 as an example, fail. Just like Spore did, since it, just like the majority of games today, just aren't even close to being as good as older, well-designed games. They used to have to design a game well because of limited technology and resources. Innovation was the name of the game. That's why we had Ninjas with Yo-Yo's, Plumbers who eat Flowers and Mushrooms, and Robot Ninja Cats in our games. Now that they aren't as limited, some developers feel they no longer have to design something as well as they used to, if they can spice it up with fancy graphics and particle effects and marketing campaigns. Graphical Production has taken over from Innovation as the new name of the game, which is unfortunate. Blizzard themselves would say GAMEPLAY FIRST, which unfortunately, is no longer the stigma for most developers. They go for graphics first, making the game look awesome regardless of how it plays. Sim. Ant. RULES! | ||
|
thesighter
United States347 Posts
Many "genres" of games got their start in the 90s, or were heavily popularized during that time. Examples: fighting game (street fighter), first person shooter (doom), survival horror (resident evil), RPG (too many to list), etc. Most importantly, the RTS genre got its start during the 90s (Dune 2, Warcraft, Starcraft, C&C). The two thing that I miss the most from the 90s are arcades (fighting games, light gun shooters) and graphical adventure games. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
|
|
|
EPT
