GMDX Dev on 10/12/2015 at 09:33
Firstly, the exceptions of modern times I find are very, very rare. Secondly, even a lot of the non-critically acclaimed games back then had a lot going for them I found.
The (gameplay) design of games today is intentionally held back too which really gets on my tits.
icemann on 10/12/2015 at 11:25
One thing I will say, and this corresponds with the PC side of things much more so than console, was the main gaming population then were far more technical minded. Hell, just to get into windows you needed a boot disk, or do some fancy memory work to get games to run etc. Constant upgrading being needed to run the latest games was another thing common as well, which meant knowing your techy parts stuff to be able to save the most by doing upgrades rather than just buying complete systems. And so games were more tailored to the market that existed at that time imo.
Nowadays anyone can just walk up, press the on/power button and a few seconds later their in windows and good to go. And so the demographic has changed COMPLETELY. Thus games are aimed different to fit that wider audience.
Also a computer bought nowadays will last you 5+ years of solid gaming on the newest of releases. That's a huge change over the 90s.
catbarf on 10/12/2015 at 13:25
Quote Posted by GMDX Dev
"Do you really think in the 90s people had better taste and played good games only?"
In games? To some degree, yes. Top sellers were the games we call classics now. Looking Glass' lack of success was one of few exceptions, and it's a damn shame.
It sounds to me like a real stretch to claim that gamers in the 90s preferred sophisticated games, and then attribute the failure of a well-known studio that produced those games to essentially a cosmic fluke. Doom outsold System Shock for a reason.
Quote Posted by GMDX Dev
Ass. Creed was one of the first to set the modern precedent for gameplay that isn't really gameplay, but cinematics (namely the parkour & combat).
What does that even mean? AC's parkour and combat aren't gameplay?
GMDX Dev on 10/12/2015 at 14:15
Quote Posted by catbarf
Doom outsold System Shock for a reason.
-Marketing.
-Its simplicity was undoubtedly more suited to counter-intuitive keyboard control that was the standard. Stock keyboards are designed for typing, not gaming. There's a reason SS is notorious for its controls, though I for one appreciate LG pushed as hard as they could for gameplay depth regardless.
-It got there first (disregarding the more notable Ultima Underworld, which was what was
truly deserving of mass success).
-Multiplayer.
-Some would argue it is the more enjoyable game, all things considered, despite System Shock being far more advanced & innovative in many respects. See the point on controls, for one.
Also, It's not like Doom was the opposite extreme of SS in quality. They are both great games, so yes, gamers still had good taste, they just needed to distribute it a bit more fairly.
Anyhow, I'm not sure it is so much the gamer's tastes that were superior in the 90s as much as it was the developers and publishers themselves. Successfully marketed games were actually demanding, innovative, unique etc. There were no cinematic regenerating health intentionally mindless alternatives. That shit didn't fly back then.
Quote:
What does that even mean? AC's parkour and combat aren't gameplay?
Don't play dumb, I was obviously exaggerating. It's gameplay as much as quick time events are gameplay, to be clear.
faetal on 10/12/2015 at 14:38
This thread is posed as an open question, but only a narrow bandwidth of answers are accepted as valid.
It's entirely possible to enjoy games like Deus Ex and Assassin's Creed in totally different ways. I know I do, and I have been gaming since the late '80s.
There used to be a guy on here called Koki who tried to tell people that their enjoyment of games he didn't like was objectively bad taste. At least he was witty after a fashion.
GMDX Dev on 10/12/2015 at 15:23
Hey, if you enjoy mindless or non-games then by all means be my guest. Personally I'm tired of them dominating the market in a hostile takeover of my hobby, but what can I do when even you (presumably more) experienced old-timers do not acknowledge the fucking abysmal drop in standards and practices.
demagogue on 10/12/2015 at 15:29
The term Golden Age doesn't usually refer to great per se, but the first generation of some movement that becomes a cultural standard. In that respect, the 90s were a golden age because it was the period 3D tech came about, and any other tech that needed more than a 486 & VGA to run for that matter. So it set all the benchmarks and standards for 3D & the like games, what we think of as 'gaming' today.
For perspective, games before 1990 were consistently less than 10MB. After 1999 they were consistently more than a gigabyte. Think about the implications of that.
PigLick on 10/12/2015 at 16:05
Essentially the "goldenage" is going to be different for each person, according to age, when they got into gaming etc. I have a feeling I missed out on my own goldenage, because I didnt have a PC in the late 80's-early90's, so I didnt get to play things like the Gold box D+D stuff, all those point'nclick classics. Which I really really really wanted to play as a young teenager.
So I guess after having kids, and then having money to buy technology during the period of lets say 1999-2007, that would be my goldenage. Gamecube, Dreamcast, fucking SAN ANDREAS, Thief2, Deus Ex so many more.
GOLDENAGE
Neb on 10/12/2015 at 16:14
^ I can hear Tina Turner singing that.
catbarf on 10/12/2015 at 17:05
Quote Posted by GMDX Dev
Also, It's not like Doom was the opposite extreme of SS in quality. They are both great games, so yes, gamers still had good taste, they just needed to distribute it a bit more fairly.
When you say stuff like this I start thinking you're talking about gamers having bad taste nowadays just in terms of the success of games of middling quality like Watch_Dogs, but then when you say stuff like
Quote Posted by GMDX Dev
Hey, if you enjoy mindless or non-games then by all means be my guest.
then I really don't know what you're trying to argue. I enjoy plenty of mindless games like Doom, Half-Life, Serious Sam, and Call of Duty, three of which are vaunted classics while the fourth I am guessing is your idea of a mindless game symptomatic of this generation's plebeian tastes. And I enjoy 'non-games' (according to a very narrow and extraordinarily pretentious definition of gaming) like Myst, which is so much less a traditional videogame than the titles you're pointing at like Assassin's Creed it's not even funny.
Quote Posted by GMDX Dev
Don't play dumb, I was obviously exaggerating. It's gameplay as much as quick time events are gameplay, to be clear.
And what does that even
mean? It's a third-person adventure game with a parkour gimmick and generic brawling combat mechanics. That's QTE levels of gameplay? What are the Batman games to you, interactive movies?
