Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

why older games seem better...

145791017

Comments

  • HolophonistHolophonist Member UncommonPosts: 2,091
    Originally posted by MuffinStump

    In essence much of this argument at its core is not about the capacity for the older gamer to adapt to 'advancement' in the industry or whether the genre itself has advanced at all. What it really comes down to is whether you support the ongoing argument that engaged criticism of any kind toward art/architecture/music is simply subjective.

    An art critic who has an established eye for detail, an understanding of art history and an academic study of art criticism either does or does not have the ability to place a particular art piece in the context of the art world in this argument.

    How do we judge MMORPGS in terms of their existence as a gaming world, place in gaming history, and their relationship to the business of gaming? There are small and large questions here but I don't think they are above a critical view. Just labeling something as a subjective experience seems to cut off all discussion though. If you do engage in some critical analysis it stands to reason that the older gamer who has played and experienced these games might have some keen insight into their comparison. Simply saying that they have rose colored glasses shuts off all discussion from anyone who was actually around to play those games.

    Nostalgia is sometimes a factor, surely, but in a structured discussion there can also be some critical comparison.

    (Just rambling about the way this discussion is running really, carry on)

    I totally agree. There's a strong tendency 'round these parts to just shut down completely once you deem something as being "subjective." As you say, that shouldn't stop you from having a discussion. And that discussion can absolutely be based in objectivity. It's not hard to agree on some objective standards of what makes a game "good" or "better." At that point you absolutely can debate the merits of two differing games or game types.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,772
    Originally posted by Morrok

     


    Originally posted by aspekx
    why older games seem better...


    'Cause they ARE!

     

    *proudly (re-)playing FFE currently* :P

    For you. They are much worse games for me.

     

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,585


    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by Morrok

    Originally posted by aspekx
    why older games seem better...
    'Cause they ARE!*proudly (re-)playing FFE currently* :P
    For you. They are much worse games for me.
    No way! really? I would never have thought it!

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,203
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by MuffinStump

    In essence much of this argument at its core is not about the capacity for the older gamer to adapt to 'advancement' in the industry or whether the genre itself has advanced at all. What it really comes down to is whether you support the ongoing argument that engaged criticism of any kind toward art/architecture/music is simply subjective.

    An art critic who has an established eye for detail, an understanding of art history and an academic study of art criticism either does or does not have the ability to place a particular art piece in the context of the art world in this argument.

    How do we judge MMORPGS in terms of their existence as a gaming world, place in gaming history, and their relationship to the business of gaming? There are small and large questions here but I don't think they are above a critical view. Just labeling something as a subjective experience seems to cut off all discussion though. If you do engage in some critical analysis it stands to reason that the older gamer who has played and experienced these games might have some keen insight into their comparison. Simply saying that they have rose colored glasses shuts off all discussion from anyone who was actually around to play those games.

    Nostalgia is sometimes a factor, surely, but in a structured discussion there can also be some critical comparison.

    (Just rambling about the way this discussion is running really, carry on)

    I totally agree. There's a strong tendency 'round these parts to just shut down completely once you deem something as being "subjective." As you say, that shouldn't stop you from having a discussion. And that discussion can absolutely be based in objectivity. It's not hard to agree on some objective standards of what makes a game "good" or "better." At that point you absolutely can debate the merits of two differing games or game types.

    Lots of people, not just posters on here use the term subjective to label something as 'impossible to determine what is better or what is right or wrong'. Well life can be rather subjective, so lets not make a decision about anything in it! It ties in with the trendy idea of being too "judgy", another label which I think is being used be people to just to dismiss the ideas of those who do not think as they do.

    It is the natural function of a rational mind to weigh data and reach a conclusion, one at least most can agree on. It is just as well we are not as subjective as some people think otherwise civilization would not have made it out of the stone age. However I do think reaching objective standards is difficult, gaming is not a science. For me it is the dismissing of the attempt to reach common ground that makes it look like posters are simply trying to dismiss the arguments.

    Even two curates eggs can be objectively classified as eggs.

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,772
    Originally posted by Scot
     

    Lots of people, not just posters on here use the term subjective to label something as 'impossible to determine what is better or what is right or wrong'. Well life can be rather subjective, so lets not make a decision about anything in it! It ties in with the trendy idea of being too "judgy", another label which I think is being used be people to just to dismiss the ideas of those who do not think as they do.

    It is the natural function of a rational mind to weigh data and reach a conclusion, one at least most can agree on. It is just as well we are not as subjective as some people think otherwise civilization would not have made it out of the stone age. However I do think reaching objective standards is difficult, gaming is not a science. For me it is the dismissing of the attempt to reach common ground that makes it look like posters are simply trying to dismiss the arguments.

    Even two curates eggs can be objectively classified as eggs.

    You are confused.

    Subjective does not mean that it is "impossible to determine what is better". It means what is better for me is not the same for you. I can tell very clearly that UO is a very bad game for me. Don't tell me you think that is an objective statement, and everyone in this world should think that it is a very bad game.

    I see the opposite.  Some are trying to impose their preferences on others, and try to argue away that people have different preferences.

    Yes, you can classified eggs, but it is pointless to try to force people who don't like eggs to say they are better food.

    Don't tell me you don't know the difference between a statement about how to classify thing, and one about preferences for entertainment.

  • NevulusNevulus Member UncommonPosts: 1,288
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    You are confused.

    Subjective does not mean that it is "impossible to determine what is better". It means what is better for me is not the same for you. I can tell very clearly that UO is a very bad game for me. Don't tell me you think that is an objective statement, and everyone in this world should think that it is a very bad game.

    I see the opposite.  Some are trying to impose their preferences on others, and try to argue away that people have different preferences.

    Yes, you can classified eggs, but it is pointless to try to force people who don't like eggs to say they are better food.

    Don't tell me you don't know the difference between a statement about how to classify thing, and one about preferences for entertainment.

    I don't understand why someone continues to hijack the topic of threads in order to bait people into arguments.

     

    Back on topic:

    Older games do not seem better to me, they simple were better. The older games were much harder in difficulty, giving the user a better sense of accomplishment when they were finished. There was even a whole case study about it: http://kotaku.com/5892690/science-proves-old-video-games-were-super-hard

     

    There is a difference between hard by great design and hard by weak design.

    Hard by great design: Legend of Zelda - Puzzles. The puzzles were thought-provoking.

    Hard by weak design: Borderlands 1 - Island of Doctor Nedd. By giving the monsters a simple snare ability, it did make the game a bit harder, but only by what most consider a "cheesey" tactic. 

     

     

     

  • AsterivethAsteriveth Member UncommonPosts: 104
    Originally posted by Nevulus
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    You are confused.

    Subjective does not mean that it is "impossible to determine what is better". It means what is better for me is not the same for you. I can tell very clearly that UO is a very bad game for me. Don't tell me you think that is an objective statement, and everyone in this world should think that it is a very bad game.

    I see the opposite.  Some are trying to impose their preferences on others, and try to argue away that people have different preferences.

    Yes, you can classified eggs, but it is pointless to try to force people who don't like eggs to say they are better food.

    Don't tell me you don't know the difference between a statement about how to classify thing, and one about preferences for entertainment.

    I don't understand why someone continues to hijack the topic of threads in order to bait people into arguments.

     

    Back on topic:

    Older games do not seem better to me, they simple were better. The older games were much harder in difficulty, giving the user a better sense of accomplishment when they were finished. There was even a whole case study about it: http://kotaku.com/5892690/science-proves-old-video-games-were-super-hard

     

    There is a difference between hard by great design and hard by weak design.

    Hard by great design: Legend of Zelda - Puzzles. The puzzles were thought-provoking.

    Hard by weak design: Borderlands 1 - Island of Doctor Nedd. By giving the monsters a simple snare ability, it did make the game a bit harder, but only by what most consider a "cheesey" tactic. 

     

     

     

    So that they can have 14888 posts. Apparently they have no life away from these boards. 

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,772
    Originally posted by Nevulus
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    You are confused.

    Subjective does not mean that it is "impossible to determine what is better". It means what is better for me is not the same for you. I can tell very clearly that UO is a very bad game for me. Don't tell me you think that is an objective statement, and everyone in this world should think that it is a very bad game.

    I see the opposite.  Some are trying to impose their preferences on others, and try to argue away that people have different preferences.

    Yes, you can classified eggs, but it is pointless to try to force people who don't like eggs to say they are better food.

    Don't tell me you don't know the difference between a statement about how to classify thing, and one about preferences for entertainment.

    I don't understand why someone continues to hijack the topic of threads in order to bait people into arguments.

     

    Back on topic:

    Older games do not seem better to me, they simple were better. The older games were much harder in difficulty, giving the user a better sense of accomplishment when they were finished. There was even a whole case study about it: http://kotaku.com/5892690/science-proves-old-video-games-were-super-hard

     

    There is a difference between hard by great design and hard by weak design.

    Hard by great design: Legend of Zelda - Puzzles. The puzzles were thought-provoking.

    Hard by weak design: Borderlands 1 - Island of Doctor Nedd. By giving the monsters a simple snare ability, it did make the game a bit harder, but only by what most consider a "cheesey" tactic. 

     

     

     

    And i don't understand why someone cannot tolerate people with different opinions.

    Incidentally, do you agree or disagree that fun and "goodness" of a game is subjective?

  • Shayyd80Shayyd80 Member Posts: 110
    Originally posted by drakaena
    Because devs used to make games they wanted to play instead of corporation's deciding what will make them the most money. MMOs lost their soul. Sort of like D&D.

    well said

  • HolophonistHolophonist Member UncommonPosts: 2,091
    Originally posted by Nevulus
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    You are confused.

    Subjective does not mean that it is "impossible to determine what is better". It means what is better for me is not the same for you. I can tell very clearly that UO is a very bad game for me. Don't tell me you think that is an objective statement, and everyone in this world should think that it is a very bad game.

    I see the opposite.  Some are trying to impose their preferences on others, and try to argue away that people have different preferences.

    Yes, you can classified eggs, but it is pointless to try to force people who don't like eggs to say they are better food.

    Don't tell me you don't know the difference between a statement about how to classify thing, and one about preferences for entertainment.

    I don't understand why someone continues to hijack the topic of threads in order to bait people into arguments.

     

    Back on topic:

    Older games do not seem better to me, they simple were better. The older games were much harder in difficulty, giving the user a better sense of accomplishment when they were finished. There was even a whole case study about it: http://kotaku.com/5892690/science-proves-old-video-games-were-super-hard

     

    There is a difference between hard by great design and hard by weak design.

    Hard by great design: Legend of Zelda - Puzzles. The puzzles were thought-provoking.

    Hard by weak design: Borderlands 1 - Island of Doctor Nedd. By giving the monsters a simple snare ability, it did make the game a bit harder, but only by what most consider a "cheesey" tactic. 

    Totally. This reminds me of when people (narius included) advocate for "difficulty sliders" in games. As you say there is good difficult and bad difficult. I could make any game more difficult by telling my fiancee to randomly unplug my monitor for 5 seconds at a time.

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 16,628

    It  like many ideas in life is simply fictional,nothing to prove it factually.

    I believe it is as simple as many older ideas are in fact better,that does not mean all old ideas but many.Then of course newer ,younger people would have no recollection of past ideas,so they conform to new ones,it still proves nothing.

    I find that just reading for example these forums,it seems to me that it is the OLDER gamer that wants more change than the new gamer.What i have seen over the thousands of posts here is that new gamer's  simply want easier gaming,while older gamer's want more sophisticated gaming using some older ideas.Then of course there are those who fall in between,they don't adhere to old but more so to their FIRST love in a game.

    Personally i am an older gamer and i always want to see a push forward ,i do want change but i also see no reason to change some of the older good ideas.Instead i want to improve upon them because nothing in life  has reached perfection,there is always room to improve.

    I think another reason many perceive older games as being better is because newer games have done nothing to create change but instead many have taken older ideas,dumb them down further or simply made games that utilize 50% of the effort older games put in.The biggest factor in all of it is money,there are only a handful of developers that have the ability to make newer games better.In reality there were only a handful of older developers that could strive to reach higher limits in gaming,so really nothing has changed over the years.

    Even Microsoft has reached a standstill,not because they feel old is better but because they have run out of ideas.They will no longer advance the DX technologies but instead look to new ideas.

    MOST of the current trends in change have been oens that simply save money,they are looking for ways to cut cost of development,basically eliminating that added effort it takes to make a game better.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • BurntvetBurntvet Member RarePosts: 3,465

    There isn't even really a debate when you compare the amount of different features/game mechanics and/or supported play styles in older games vs newer games.

    Older games simply had more options and choices available. If you liked those choices, the games today are very bland by comparison. If you didn't like the amount of choices or don't care, you might be perfectly happy with what is available today.

    It isn't really any more complicated than that.

     

    Edit: and to echo the previous poster, yeah, many of the younger gamers never had a chance to play those older games, so they don't know what they were missing, and thus, don't miss it.

  • ElikalElikal Member UncommonPosts: 7,912

    Well, truth be told, I always preferred to be around older people, even when I was 20-something, because young folks always seemed too jumpy and erratic to me. Call that "inflexible", I call it laid back and experienced.

    To a 20 yo person getting that boss, getting that armor piece may seem like a MUST HAVE. If you are 40+, you realize some things are not worth your limited, mortal lifetime. And camping a boss 4 hours for some ugly shoulderpads is certainly among it. But I always felt that way. Even when I was young. It's why I always preferred to work in places with older people around; the young always are so pushy, want careers, success and all that vain stuff.

    People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert

  • FoomerangFoomerang Member UncommonPosts: 5,619

    Early mmos felt like early video games. It felt very niche. And the enthusiast were rubbing elbows with the hobbyists. Those times always feel fresh and exciting. Like you're in at ground zero of something special.

  • jeeshadowjeeshadow Member UncommonPosts: 133

    The past always looks better the older you get and the further you are from it.  This is because our minds are inherently optimistic as a survival technique.  We choose to remember the good in things and minimize the bad.

     

    All I remember about DAOC was the large epic battles, the wonderful community, and the "newness" of everything.  I systematically choose to forget the class imbalances, the mind-numbing grind of leveling, and the over-poweredness of Hib casters! ;)

  • jpnzjpnz Member Posts: 3,529
    Originally posted by Burntvet

    There isn't even really a debate when you compare the amount of different features/game mechanics and/or supported play styles in older games vs newer games.

    Older games simply had more options and choices available. If you liked those choices, the games today are very bland by comparison. If you didn't like the amount of choices or don't care, you might be perfectly happy with what is available today.

    It isn't really any more complicated than that.

     

    Edit: and to echo the previous poster, yeah, many of the younger gamers never had a chance to play those older games, so they don't know what they were missing, and thus, don't miss it.

    I can give someone a pen and paper and say 'you have more choices / options than any library in the world'.

    Which is technically true but doesn't really fulfill that 'entertain' part for most people.

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,203
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Nevulus
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    You are confused.

    Subjective does not mean that it is "impossible to determine what is better". It means what is better for me is not the same for you. I can tell very clearly that UO is a very bad game for me. Don't tell me you think that is an objective statement, and everyone in this world should think that it is a very bad game.

    I see the opposite.  Some are trying to impose their preferences on others, and try to argue away that people have different preferences.

    Yes, you can classified eggs, but it is pointless to try to force people who don't like eggs to say they are better food.

    Don't tell me you don't know the difference between a statement about how to classify thing, and one about preferences for entertainment.

    I don't understand why someone continues to hijack the topic of threads in order to bait people into arguments.

     

    Back on topic:

    Older games do not seem better to me, they simple were better. The older games were much harder in difficulty, giving the user a better sense of accomplishment when they were finished. There was even a whole case study about it: http://kotaku.com/5892690/science-proves-old-video-games-were-super-hard

     

    There is a difference between hard by great design and hard by weak design.

    Hard by great design: Legend of Zelda - Puzzles. The puzzles were thought-provoking.

    Hard by weak design: Borderlands 1 - Island of Doctor Nedd. By giving the monsters a simple snare ability, it did make the game a bit harder, but only by what most consider a "cheesey" tactic. 

     

     

     

    And i don't understand why someone cannot tolerate people with different opinions.

    Incidentally, do you agree or disagree that fun and "goodness" of a game is subjective?

    You are quite right, subjective does not mean 'impossible to determine what is better', but that is how some posters are using it, including yourself. The fun and goodness in a game are not subjective, but I agree they are an area where it is difficult to achieve objectivity. Politics is an area where it is difficult for people to be objective, do we just give up and shout at each other or try to form common ground? Just because something is hard to do does not mean it should not be attempted.

    The difficult game versus a game with a difficulty slider is a case in point. It is a complex area because difficulty is measured in many ways. Most difficulty sliders just make the opposition tougher, they rarely make the AI of opponents better or make the puzzles harder. Personally I don't mind difficulty sliders in a FPS, you can achieve at various levels, but even a FPS can have puzzle elements. Puzzles which will no doubt be dumbed down as they can't put a slider on them. But the games of yesteryear were harder, and the puzzles often better. I notice that a couple of classic old games have been re-released on consoles recently with graphic updates. These games from 10+ years ago leave modern releases looking pedestrian. This is not nostalgia, they were just such great games.

     

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • jpnzjpnz Member Posts: 3,529
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
     

    And i don't understand why someone cannot tolerate people with different opinions.

    Incidentally, do you agree or disagree that fun and "goodness" of a game is subjective?

    You are quite right, subjective does not mean 'impossible to determine what is better', but that is how some posters are using it, including yourself. The fun and goodness in a game are not subjective, but I agree they are an area where it is difficult to achieve objectivity. Politics is an area where it is difficult for people to be objective, do we just give up and shout at each other or try to form common ground? Just because something is hard to do does not mean it should not be attempted.

    The difficult game versus a game with a difficulty slider is a case in point. It is a complex area because difficulty is measured in many ways. Most difficulty sliders just make the opposition tougher, they rarely make the AI of opponents better or make the puzzles harder. Personally I don't mind difficulty sliders in a FPS, you can achieve at various levels, but even a FPS can have puzzle elements. Puzzles which will no doubt be dumbed down as they can't put a slider on them. But the games of yesteryear were harder, and the puzzles often better. I notice that a couple of classic old games have been re-released on consoles recently with graphic updates. These games from 10+ years ago leave modern releases looking pedestrian. This is not nostalgia, they were just such great games.

     

    I challenge anyone to say Portal 2 had 'bad puzzles'.

    Ultima 9 is an old game with puzzles and that game was god-awful.

    We always remember the good ones and not the bad ones which is why the past seems always better.

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • BurntvetBurntvet Member RarePosts: 3,465
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by Burntvet

    There isn't even really a debate when you compare the amount of different features/game mechanics and/or supported play styles in older games vs newer games.

    Older games simply had more options and choices available. If you liked those choices, the games today are very bland by comparison. If you didn't like the amount of choices or don't care, you might be perfectly happy with what is available today.

    It isn't really any more complicated than that.

     

    Edit: and to echo the previous poster, yeah, many of the younger gamers never had a chance to play those older games, so they don't know what they were missing, and thus, don't miss it.

    I can give someone a pen and paper and say 'you have more choices / options than any library in the world'.

    Which is technically true but doesn't really fulfill that 'entertain' part for most people.

    As we are comparing older games to new games, and not a piece of paper, that non-argument is completely bogus.

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,203
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
     

    And i don't understand why someone cannot tolerate people with different opinions.

    Incidentally, do you agree or disagree that fun and "goodness" of a game is subjective?

    You are quite right, subjective does not mean 'impossible to determine what is better', but that is how some posters are using it, including yourself. The fun and goodness in a game are not subjective, but I agree they are an area where it is difficult to achieve objectivity. Politics is an area where it is difficult for people to be objective, do we just give up and shout at each other or try to form common ground? Just because something is hard to do does not mean it should not be attempted.

    The difficult game versus a game with a difficulty slider is a case in point. It is a complex area because difficulty is measured in many ways. Most difficulty sliders just make the opposition tougher, they rarely make the AI of opponents better or make the puzzles harder. Personally I don't mind difficulty sliders in a FPS, you can achieve at various levels, but even a FPS can have puzzle elements. Puzzles which will no doubt be dumbed down as they can't put a slider on them. But the games of yesteryear were harder, and the puzzles often better. I notice that a couple of classic old games have been re-released on consoles recently with graphic updates. These games from 10+ years ago leave modern releases looking pedestrian. This is not nostalgia, they were just such great games.

     

    I challenge anyone to say Portal 2 had 'bad puzzles'.

    Ultima 9 is an old game with puzzles and that game was god-awful.

    We always remember the good ones and not the bad ones which is why the past seems always better.

    This is about quantity, pervasiveness of a play style in gaming as much as it is about quality. In the last decade we lost a genre called Adventure games, the big companies pulled out and it was left to the indies. The last one produced was Dreamfall: the Longest Journey 2006 to my knowledge. I know that genre still gets used as a category for certain games, but Monkey Island they are not.

    Portal was one of the rare exceptions, not really an adventure game but a mould breaker and a genuine puzzle game. Also did not Portal 2 get a bit of dumbing down? They binned the timed rooms for sure.

    When the genre that was the standard bearer for puzzle games, the successor to the text adventure goes down the tubes because FPS sold more you can see what the industry is going to think about puzzles.

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,772
    Originally posted by Scot
     

    You are quite right, subjective does not mean 'impossible to determine what is better', but that is how some posters are using it, including yourself. The fun and goodness in a game are not subjective, but I agree they are an area where it is difficult to achieve objectivity. Politics is an area where it is difficult for people to be objective, do we just give up and shout at each other or try to form common ground? Just because something is hard to do does not mean it should not be attempted.

    The difficult game versus a game with a difficulty slider is a case in point. It is a complex area because difficulty is measured in many ways. Most difficulty sliders just make the opposition tougher, they rarely make the AI of opponents better or make the puzzles harder. Personally I don't mind difficulty sliders in a FPS, you can achieve at various levels, but even a FPS can have puzzle elements. Puzzles which will no doubt be dumbed down as they can't put a slider on them. But the games of yesteryear were harder, and the puzzles often better. I notice that a couple of classic old games have been re-released on consoles recently with graphic updates. These games from 10+ years ago leave modern releases looking pedestrian. This is not nostalgia, they were just such great games.

     

    I think you are still confused. I never said it is "impossible to determine what is better". I said "what is better" is different to me and you.

    Case in point, UO and EQ are very bad games to me. Eve is a very bad game to me (and i can list my reasons, but that is not the point). Many here hold a different opinion. This shows that universal "goodness" is not possible. All the arguments here boils down to "i think it is good" and "you think it is bad".

    This applies to death penalty, virtual world, slow travelilng, and almost any game design argument, and yes, difficulty sliders.

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,772
    Originally posted by Scot
     

    This is about quantity, pervasiveness of a play style in gaming as much as it is about quality. In the last decade we lost a genre called Adventure games, the big companies pulled out and it was left to the indies. The last one produced was Dreamfall: the Longest Journey 2006 to my knowledge. I know that genre still gets used as a category for certain games, but Monkey Island they are not.

    It came back.

    All the sherlock holmes games. Walking Dead. Gone Home. There are plenty of quality point & click adventure out there.

    (www.adventuregamer.com)

    In fact, the production value of the latest sherlock holmes games are as good as AAA shooters.

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,203
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot
     

    This is about quantity, pervasiveness of a play style in gaming as much as it is about quality. In the last decade we lost a genre called Adventure games, the big companies pulled out and it was left to the indies. The last one produced was Dreamfall: the Longest Journey 2006 to my knowledge. I know that genre still gets used as a category for certain games, but Monkey Island they are not.

    It came back.

    All the sherlock holmes games. Walking Dead. Gone Home. There are plenty of quality point & click adventure out there.

    (www.adventuregamer.com)

    In fact, the production value of the latest sherlock holmes games are as good as AAA shooters.

    Yes I have seen the journalists saying it has come back, I am not so sure though. I do admire the SH games, they have a virtual world and are puzzle orientated. They don't seem to be quite up there with the top shooters graphically mind you but that's not an issue for me. They are produced by an indie which for me is where the genre is still at.

    If you read the reviews of the new games out that they are calling a revival of the adventure game genre they don't talk about the puzzles much. They talk about the storyline, the combat, the feel of the world but the puzzles seem rather down on the list. So for me its a time out yet to see if there really is a revival.

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,203
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot
     

    You are quite right, subjective does not mean 'impossible to determine what is better', but that is how some posters are using it, including yourself. The fun and goodness in a game are not subjective, but I agree they are an area where it is difficult to achieve objectivity. Politics is an area where it is difficult for people to be objective, do we just give up and shout at each other or try to form common ground? Just because something is hard to do does not mean it should not be attempted.

    The difficult game versus a game with a difficulty slider is a case in point. It is a complex area because difficulty is measured in many ways. Most difficulty sliders just make the opposition tougher, they rarely make the AI of opponents better or make the puzzles harder. Personally I don't mind difficulty sliders in a FPS, you can achieve at various levels, but even a FPS can have puzzle elements. Puzzles which will no doubt be dumbed down as they can't put a slider on them. But the games of yesteryear were harder, and the puzzles often better. I notice that a couple of classic old games have been re-released on consoles recently with graphic updates. These games from 10+ years ago leave modern releases looking pedestrian. This is not nostalgia, they were just such great games.

     

    I think you are still confused. I never said it is "impossible to determine what is better". I said "what is better" is different to me and you.

    Case in point, UO and EQ are very bad games to me. Eve is a very bad game to me (and i can list my reasons, but that is not the point). Many here hold a different opinion. This shows that universal "goodness" is not possible. All the arguments here boils down to "i think it is good" and "you think it is bad".

    This applies to death penalty, virtual world, slow travelilng, and almost any game design argument, and yes, difficulty sliders.

     

    But your argument here could be used about anything, you can say anything a person believes to be true has a subjective element, even science. I am saying that gaming should be no different from any other area be it politics where beliefs are entrenched or art which is very subjective. They is still room for common ground, there are reasons why we think a death penalty that is too harsh is bad, too easy is bad. It is not just about do you think it is fun or not. You can express why you think it is fun or why you don't.

     

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,772
    Originally posted by Scot
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot
     

    This is about quantity, pervasiveness of a play style in gaming as much as it is about quality. In the last decade we lost a genre called Adventure games, the big companies pulled out and it was left to the indies. The last one produced was Dreamfall: the Longest Journey 2006 to my knowledge. I know that genre still gets used as a category for certain games, but Monkey Island they are not.

    It came back.

    All the sherlock holmes games. Walking Dead. Gone Home. There are plenty of quality point & click adventure out there.

    (www.adventuregamer.com)

    In fact, the production value of the latest sherlock holmes games are as good as AAA shooters.

    Yes I have seen the journalists saying it has come back, I am not so sure though. I do admire the SH games, they have a virtual world and are puzzle orientated. They don't seem to be quite up there with the top shooters graphically mind you but that's not an issue for me. They are produced by an indie which for me is where the genre is still at.

    If you read the reviews of the new games out that they are calling a revival of the adventure game genre they don't talk about the puzzles much. They talk about the storyline, the combat, the feel of the world but the puzzles seem rather down on the list. So for me its a time out yet to see if there really is a revival.

    You have not played the latest Testament of SH? That looks as good as Dishonored, or Bioshock, IMHO. The key difference is that there are fewer characters, and the environment is smaller .. hence can be supported by the smaller budget.

    Sure .. it is produced by a small company, but that does not mean lower graphics quality because the games are smaller and use fewer assets.

    You are not reading the right reviews. Adventuregamer.com reviews include statements about the puzzles. SH games have good puzzles.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.