Sure, the wonder and newness of, say the first star wars movies, isn't quite the same from when I first saw them at 7 and when I see them now at 44 but I can still watch them and realize they are leagues above the new star wars movies.
We might experience games a bit differently from when we were young and we might be a bit more critical but for a person who can still firmly plant a foot into his/her childlike place, they will clearly still enjoy games, movies, comics, etc as long as they are taken in perspective.
My 8 yr old daughter loves the original trilogy and thinks the prequels are crap. That pretty much puts an end to this thread.
I have three younger sibblings (I'm 32), one (18 year old female) hates anything Star wars the other two (boys 13 and 16) hate anything "old" Star Wars, but love the new movies and cartoons(s). I guess the thread started back up.
I have nephews that also like the new not the old as well. I came up after the time period of the original star wars movies myself so I was never a big star wars fan. I tend to prefer more sci fi less space opera. The original movies were designed for kids (ewoks for example). The star wars movies were the transformers / twilight of their day. You simply experience things more intensely as a kid.
However, I have watched a couples episodes of the new animated show with my nephews. The show plot was much deeper than I thought it would be. Hell, they even killed off a character, a girl no less in the episode. The animation quality was pretty good as well.
Unfortunately i wasnt very easy impressed by games or cheesburgers like the writer of the article when i was younger. And the problem is i was 2004 when wow hit the mmorpg scene also very young so i saw the downfall of mmorpgs to casualville own my own. That article is only interessting if you are 30+ years old.
You know why the original Star War Trilogy was so much better than the prequels? It's because you were 10 years old and everything is fucking awesome when you're 10 years old.
You've been there. You've done hat. And now you're no longer in the demographic that the game industry caters to. You aren't a surburban white boy between the ages of 14 and 25. It's not the games, it's you.
I've been trying to get this across for years, but it always falls on deaf ears. So here it is one more time. The games are the same brainless fun that they've always been. You've just gotten to old and jaded to participate.
LOL. Really? So which are you? Too old to play or too young to know what you are talking about? If you didn't play games inthe old days, then you can't compare. If you did, then you are just trying to act cool.
The reason kids don't like the earlier movies is because the "graphics suck" or because they are the type of people who thing Tolkien totally ripped off D&D.
I will shut up now since I will be getting a temp ban for saying you are young or some such nonsense so no point in talking until I hurt some mods feelings and get a perma ban. :eyeroll:
The average game player is 37 years old and has been playing games for 12 years.
The average age of the most frequent game purchaser is 41 years old.
In my opinion, i disagree with you. I miss the games of yesteryear because they were DEEP, had DEPTH, and a story.
Great graphics weren't available then, so gamers had to get sucked into the STORY and GAMEPLAY, not the awesome graphics and OMGSHINY GIMMEGIMMEGIMME's simple gameplay of today.
Games then had storyline twists, up's and down's in the emotions of the games, made you WANT to play to see how it all ended, and the fights/puzzles/whatever were the entertainment along the way.
My two cents.
Let's play a game.
First, go to Metacritic and look at the top five games across the PC, XBox 360, Playstation 3, and Wii. Or just pick the top one from each platform. Let's break this down with the number one game from each plaform:
Xbox 360 = Deus Ex: Human Revolution
PC = Deus Ex: Human Revolution
Playstation 3 = Limbo
Wii = Bit. Trip Complete
Wow, looks like PS3 and Wii owners are kind of artsy and esoteric....
... But let's continue.
Go check out the Deus Ex: Human Revolution trailer at Gametrailers. Now ask yourself: Who is his trailer made for? Who is the target audience for this ad? Rinse and repeat for any high profile title.
I'm not saying that there are no games made for an older demographic. Or that there are standout games that break with genre conventions. What I'm saying is That, by and large, the game industry is geared toward selling content for boys in thier parent's basement. Sure, we get an occassional Sword of The Stars 2 or E.Y.E. Divine Cybermancy. But those games are NOT the bread and butter of the games industry.
The complaints about game quality from older gamers has more to do with how genre savvy they are and less to do with the quality of the games in regard to their target audience. You don't like most of the new games out there, because those games were not made for you.
BTW, the reason why the most frequent purchasers of games are aged 41 and over is because most people in that age group have kids. The kids don't make money, so mom and dad have to buy their games. A vast majority of those forty-somethings that are purchasing games, are either not playing them or so casual that they don't even consider themselves gamers.
You are looking at the top recent games. If you click "see all" and "all releases" you get a very different picture. One in which those games are not even in the top 20.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
so sad that the majority of replies are only considering 'MMORPGs' in their argument. it really shows how bad the mentality of this site is.
get out of the box. quit living in a bubble. there is more out there, i promise.
i and many more, can guarantee you that we are not living in a bubble, it is you... i dont expect you to understand it because you are unable to do such thing. just nerdrage in your ignorance.
good job on having no counter-points. you just like to insult, huh? real mature.
nothing in you commnt validates your accusation. why did you even reply?
and saying things like 'and many more' doesn't actually make it so.
anyway, no reason to come back to this thread. i'm full. /burp
The only impact that age has on games in this particular form is that as you grow older your looking more and more from games , and games today are opposite of that ...you give more and more cash and get less and less content and creativity back. Thats why games are getting dull. We need some of the major companies to start making AAA titles that DENY everything that games are today , be creative for god sake...its getting so generic .
America's entertainment software industry creates a wide array of computer and video games to meet the demands and tastes of audiences as diverse as our nation's population. Today's gamers include millions of Americans of all ages and backgrounds. In fact, nearly three-quarters of all American households play games. This vast audience fuels the growth of this multi-billion dollar industry and helps bring jobs to communities across the nation. Below is a list of the top 10 entertainment software industry facts:
Consumers spent $25.1 billion on video games, hardware and accessories in 2010.
Purchases of digital content accounted for 24 percent of game sales in 2010, generating $5.9 billion in revenue.
Seventy-two percent of American households play computer or video games.
The average game player is 37 years old and has been playing games for 12 years.
The average age of the most frequent game purchaser is 41 years old.
Forty-two percent of all game players are women. In fact, women over the age of 18 represent a significantly greater portion of the game-playing population (37 percent) than boys age 17 or younger (13 percent).
In 2011, 29 percent of Americans over the age of 50 play video games, an increase from nine percent in 1999.
Fifty-five percent of gamers play games on their phones or handheld device.
Seventy-six percent of all games sold in 2010 were rated "E" for Everyone, "T" for Teen, or "E10+" for Everyone 10+. For more information on game ratings, please see www.esrb.org.
Parents are present when games are purchased or rented 91 percent of the time.
In my opinion, i disagree with you. I miss the games of yesteryear because they were DEEP, had DEPTH, and a story.
Great graphics weren't available then, so gamers had to get sucked into the STORY and GAMEPLAY, not the awesome graphics and OMGSHINY GIMMEGIMMEGIMME's simple gameplay of today.
Games then had storyline twists, up's and down's in the emotions of the games, made you WANT to play to see how it all ended, and the fights/puzzles/whatever were the entertainment along the way.
My two cents.
Umm how exactly are they getting those facts? When I was 16 my mom paid for my EQ1 account.. so it would seem that she was the actual player. I think those facts are misleading. That or our "adults" are really just a bunch of childish trolls.
America's entertainment software industry creates a wide array of computer and video games to meet the demands and tastes of audiences as diverse as our nation's population. Today's gamers include millions of Americans of all ages and backgrounds. In fact, nearly three-quarters of all American households play games. This vast audience fuels the growth of this multi-billion dollar industry and helps bring jobs to communities across the nation. Below is a list of the top 10 entertainment software industry facts:
Consumers spent $25.1 billion on video games, hardware and accessories in 2010.
Purchases of digital content accounted for 24 percent of game sales in 2010, generating $5.9 billion in revenue.
Seventy-two percent of American households play computer or video games.
The average game player is 37 years old and has been playing games for 12 years.
The average age of the most frequent game purchaser is 41 years old.
Forty-two percent of all game players are women. In fact, women over the age of 18 represent a significantly greater portion of the game-playing population (37 percent) than boys age 17 or younger (13 percent).
In 2011, 29 percent of Americans over the age of 50 play video games, an increase from nine percent in 1999.
Fifty-five percent of gamers play games on their phones or handheld device.
Seventy-six percent of all games sold in 2010 were rated "E" for Everyone, "T" for Teen, or "E10+" for Everyone 10+. For more information on game ratings, please see www.esrb.org.
Parents are present when games are purchased or rented 91 percent of the time.
In my opinion, i disagree with you. I miss the games of yesteryear because they were DEEP, had DEPTH, and a story.
Great graphics weren't available then, so gamers had to get sucked into the STORY and GAMEPLAY, not the awesome graphics and OMGSHINY GIMMEGIMMEGIMME's simple gameplay of today.
Games then had storyline twists, up's and down's in the emotions of the games, made you WANT to play to see how it all ended, and the fights/puzzles/whatever were the entertainment along the way.
My two cents.
Umm how exactly are they getting those facts? When I was 16 my mom paid for my EQ1 account.. so it would seem that she was the actual player. I think those facts are misleading. That or our "adults" are really just a bunch of childish trolls.
Sorry you are wrong, those are the demographics and game companies are targetting older games a lot. And I'm not talking about the fluff on itouch/iphone/ipads as believe it or not they are mainly for the casual and younger gamers. My kids play way more casual games and itouch games than I do. I play my PC games and xbox360 games exclusively. I consider myself a hardcore gamer.
I am in my 40's and all my friends are in their 40's and we all are online gaming whenever we can. As an adult with a job I can buy frequently and nobody limits my time gaming. I was a big gamer as a kid, but actually played much less in my 20's during my party years, before becoming a mega gamer again now that I'm settled down with kids. I barely watch TV, which again is way more geared to kids than gaming is.
The little not-so-secret that gaming companies have figured out is that gamers are skewing older and older. I will be gaming until I die, literally.
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind" 1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN 2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
You know why the original Star War Trilogy was so much better than the prequels? It's because you were 10 years old and everything is fucking awesome when you're 10 years old.
You've been there. You've done hat. And now you're no longer in the demographic that the game industry caters to. You aren't a surburban white boy between the ages of 14 and 25. It's not the games, it's you.
I've been trying to get this across for years, but it always falls on deaf ears. So here it is one more time. The games are the same brainless fun that they've always been. You've just gotten to old and jaded to participate.
LOL. Really? So which are you? Too old to play or too young to know what you are talking about? If you didn't play games inthe old days, then you can't compare. If you did, then you are just trying to act cool.
The reason kids don't like the earlier movies is because the "graphics suck" or because they are the type of people who thing Tolkien totally ripped off D&D.
I will shut up now since I will be getting a temp ban for saying you are young or some such nonsense so no point in talking until I hurt some mods feelings and get a perma ban. :eyeroll:
I'm 37. I kind of see myself as a retired gamer. I play retro games. I love indie games. And I don't see this "dumbing-down" of gaming that everyone is going on about. In terms of graphics and interface, the majority of games are actually BETTER than the older games.
And kids generally don't like older movies because those movies don't speak to their experiences or expectations. Take the first Bond movie and compare it to the first Mission Impossible movie. I think that Mission Impossible is vapid, loud, transparently stupid. Most people under 35 will find Dr. NO to be boring as hell and actually be surprised to discover that it was considered an action movie.
The current crop of games don't suck any worse than the games of 1986. It's just that the new games aren't made to appeal to you anymore.
The exact same thing is happening with MMOs. Tell me, as if you were a game developer, which audience would you rather cater too?
Sorry to cut it short, but I found this one to be rather.....awesome.
I mean, isn't that exactly the problem we are having? This is exactly why we complain, why we won't stand for mediocracy no more.
Only to hope that more people might open their eyes and realize that these games aren't worth our money. Probably also why F2P is the new trend.
No. It isn't the problem.
Some customers aren't worth catering to. In the case of grognards, fligh sim pilots, and 'hardcore' MMO players, you're looking at a loud, unpleaseable, shrinking player base. Why would I screw myself by focusing on that market?
Just like with wargames and flight sims, the community is doing way more damage than the designers.
Well my thoughts are this. There may be some truth to what is said but as for me I think my problem with games is that the gaming industry is putting paint over the rust and telling us its a new car. More thoughts are going into the graphics and animations than they are the actual gameplay. As a gamer I have found that I am not liking more games than liking and it has nothing to do with my age other than my wallet being attached to these purchases instead of my parents. It matters now that I have to pump out 50.00 to 60.00 for a game only to realize that the game is boring or lacks playability. Gaming companies want us to pay more and give us less and we want more and pay less. That is why there is starting to be a seperation with the gaming companies and the consumer and such a large demand for FTP online games. Once again just my opinion.
When I was 10 years old the home version of Pong had been out for 2 years. And the first Star Wars movie had only been out for 1 year. We watched and played and supported gaming all the way to where it is now.
I think we're getting wiser quicker than we are getting older. The first time I heard of a subscription for a video game it was weird, I couldn't understand it. Magazines and TV Guide was what subscriptions were for. I don't even remember cable tv back in them days.
It quickly turned into "Only rich folk", "the privileged" could afford them. Some people still only had Black and White tv's. Companies were still using manual exchange switchboards and rotary telephones. A computer was basicly nothing more than a glorified word processor and they cost so much, very few people could afford them, let alone heard of them. It was all sci-fi, or seemed like it anyways.
I don't believe one can ever be to old to play video games. I think it's more of the case that we're getting fed up with what they are doing to videogames and the gamers. The gamers that supported them through the entire evolution of videogaming.
It's hard to develop games for the matured audience, as they are generally composed of more seasoned gamers. They've already been there, have done that, have seen that...so naturally they'll want something new. For the newbies this is a heavenly generation to live in. They'll probably shrug off 16-bit games of the past. For the seasoned ones, who prefer the "depth" and "complexity" of older games, they might rather be able to go back in time.
Anyway, "older", "newer", "these days" are all blurry to me. Where are you guys drawing the line for comparison? You're picking games from a very huge timetable that it seems unclear if games of 2001 still belong to your "these days" or is that part of "old days", along with games prior to that. For me gaming is still the same as it has been. During the NES days there are games that I liked and games I didn't like. All throughout 4 console generations of my gaming it still holds true: I find games that I like and games our there that I didn't like.
Now, on to the "Player age vs Games" argument airing in this thread: The statement "Games suck these days" is highly subjective. I've actually played Chrono Trigger only years after I've finished Chrono Cross, and the former didn't hold up my interest. If I am to ask I'd say CT "sucks" in comparison, but people who have played CT first and loved it will definitely be up my arse. Thing is, it's the same "been there" "done that" experience for me, only in reverse. If it's going to be the same experience I'd go for the one with updated visuals and sound; but if I had played CT first I might be claiming that it has a deeper story and better game mechanics.
It's not so much about age per se (as what I think was perceived based on the replies), but one's gaming experience. You think that games "these days" suck simply because you've been exposed to something similar before. For the people who's just getting into gaming, they're probably as much of a gem as your favorite game when you were getting into gaming.
I'm back! well, only to clarify that I LOVED Ocarina of Time. It was just a really good example to use, I mean they literally re-released this game 3 or 4 times (twice for different consoles). I highly doubt I'm too old for games but I might just be expecting too much, I'll concede that at least.
It's hard to develop games for the matured audience, as they are generally composed of more seasoned gamers. They've already been there, have done that, have seen that...so naturally they'll want something new. For the newbies this is a heavenly generation to live in. They'll probably shrug off 16-bit games of the past. For the seasoned ones, who prefer the "depth" and "complexity" of older games, they might rather be able to go back in time.
Anyway, "older", "newer", "these days" are all blurry to me. Where are you guys drawing the line for comparison? You're picking games from a very huge timetable that it seems unclear if games of 2001 still belong to your "these days" or is that part of "old days", along with games prior to that. For me gaming is still the same as it has been. During the NES days there are games that I liked and games I didn't like. All throughout 4 console generations of my gaming it still holds true: I find games that I like and games our there that I didn't like.
Now, on to the "Player age vs Games" argument airing in this thread: The statement "Games suck these days" is highly subjective. I've actually played Chrono Trigger only years after I've finished Chrono Cross, and the former didn't hold up my interest. If I am to ask I'd say CT "sucks" in comparison, but people who have played CT first and loved it will definitely be up my arse. Thing is, it's the same "been there" "done that" experience for me, only in reverse. If it's going to be the same experience I'd go for the one with updated visuals and sound; but if I had played CT first I might be claiming that it has a deeper story and better game mechanics.
It's not so much about age per se (as what I think was perceived based on the replies), but one's gaming experience. You think that games "these days" suck simply because you've been exposed to something similar before. For the people who's just getting into gaming, they're probably as much of a gem as your favorite game when you were getting into gaming.
I see the logic here. I suppose my opinion would be that I don't see the drastic leaps in overall quality of the TOP end titles. Where newer gamers or less seasoned gamers wouldn't see or know the difference. The quote would be, "Ignorance is bliss." sounds true enough. I wouldn't call that being jaded or bitter, it just sucks to have to wait so many years for games designed for smart eer...more experienced gamers.
I'm not sure it's so much that we're getting "too old" for video games as it is we've just been playing them for too long. We've seen just about every gimmick developers can come up with 1,000 times before, and nothing is fresh to us anymore.
For the record, I saw the original SW trilogy when I was 5 and each new movie when it came out in theaters, and I must say that I appreciate both trilogies. The're equally as good for different reasons.
I play HL: mods, more than I play CoX which I pay $15 a month for... I blame the trending greed and laziness that is becoming more and more popular with each generation.
Another trend is the "Why innovate, when you imitate" line of development, playing games that only embellish the core aspects of previous games is getting rather old.
There's plent of innovation left, a simple thought is why we don't have an intuitive freeform action combat based mmo set in modern themed era?
The exact same thing is happening with MMOs. Tell me, as if you were a game developer, which audience would you rather cater too?
Sorry to cut it short, but I found this one to be rather.....awesome.
I mean, isn't that exactly the problem we are having? This is exactly why we complain, why we won't stand for mediocracy no more.
Only to hope that more people might open their eyes and realize that these games aren't worth our money. Probably also why F2P is the new trend.
No. It isn't the problem.
Some customers aren't worth catering to. In the case of grognards, fligh sim pilots, and 'hardcore' MMO players, you're looking at a loud, unpleaseable, shrinking player base. Why would I screw myself by focusing on that market?
Just like with wargames and flight sims, the community is doing way more damage than the designers.
Huh?
So....gamers aren't worth catering to? I mean...who else is left?
I mean even if you want to cite graphics; viziophiles had their ohhs, boos, and ahhs back in the day as well. I mean I wouldn't be surprised if some of those guys quit when they saw the animation gave to us when Earthworm Jim launched.
Cracked.com doesn't create gospel. I've met some of those guys; many don't even half-heartedly care about the subject they write about. They see what's being discussed in the trendy parts of the murky areas of the interwebs, and they generate interest.
That's what they've done here.
I don't even find the argument (used in a positive manner) that much compelling any more no matter who is discussing it.
The game industry at it's core hasn't changed. We still want more than what's offered or able to be offered, and when something is finally well crafted we drop the usual arguments.
I mean does it seem fair to say that Plants vs Zombies, Red Dead Redemption, Castlevania Symphony of the Night, Super Mario Bros, Wizardy, Pong are all great games that can be enjoyed by several generations of gamers? Yeah, it does.
It's all a matter of craftsmanship. No matter the tools or materials availiable.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
Again. The games weren't any better, in many ways they were actually worse, you were just less savvy about gaming. And now when you look back, you remember those games through the lens of your younger self. At the time, older gamers were calling you an idiot for thinking that FF7 was anything other than a bloated piece of shit. I know. I remember reading forum posts about it back in 1997.
The games change, but the song stays the same.
You know what the problem in your argumentation to me? its because you kind of compare incomparable stuff, who would compare a 1930 car with a 2010 car? Its the same for games, such rpg games like Ultima serie were just awesome games for their time, period. Just like league of legend is an awesome game for its time, maybe its nothing really that innovative blabla, but its composition and the way it is delivered just make it a good game. Mmos are on the button now, they are all too old and crappy and horribly designed. You can claim all you want that AoC is a great game compare to UO, but the fact is Uo compare to all the rpg games at his time was a genius work, Aoc compared to other games around is just a peace of shit. So if you have to compare stuff, compare it with something relevant, if you do so your thread just doesn't even worth posting in it.
I'm not sure it's so much that we're getting "too old" for video games as it is we've just been playing them for too long. We've seen just about every gimmick developers can come up with 1,000 times before, and nothing is fresh to us anymore.
Very good point, I also think that after years to maybe decennia of gaming and many, many thousands to maybe tens of thousands of hours of gaming, that the threshold for getting really excited or satisfied by a game has been raised quite a bit for many veteran gamers, to the point that for them it has to be either some new kind of gameplay that also needs to fall within the taste range of things they like, or something done exceptionally well.
Originally posted by PukeBucket
The game industry at it's core hasn't changed. We still want more than what's offered or able to be offered, and when something is finally well crafted we drop the usual arguments.
I mean does it seem fair to say that Plants vs Zombies, Red Dead Redemption, Castlevania Symphony of the Night, Super Mario Bros, Wizardy, Pong are all great games that can be enjoyed by several generations of gamers? Yeah, it does.
It's all a matter of craftsmanship. No matter the tools or materials availiable.
Also good point.
Someone else mentioned that the gaming industry doesn't bring anything new, and that it's all the same old games and mechanics with a fresh coat of paint, but I can't recall games like Red Dead Redemption, or Ruse, or Portal 2, or Heavy Rain or LA Noire or Flower existing 15-20 years before, if only in the most rudimentary mechanics resemblance if at all. And that's just some examples of current games.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
You know why the original Star War Trilogy was so much better than the prequels? It's because you were 10 years old and everything is fucking awesome when you're 10 years old.
You've been there. You've done hat. And now you're no longer in the demographic that the game industry caters to. You aren't a surburban white boy between the ages of 14 and 25. It's not the games, it's you.
I've been trying to get this across for years, but it always falls on deaf ears. So here it is one more time. The games are the same brainless fun that they've always been. You've just gotten to old and jaded to participate.
Wrong on all counts.
Your link is wrong, games are crappier these days.
And your wrong about Star Wars, the original 3 are better.
I'm not sure it's so much that we're getting "too old" for video games as it is we've just been playing them for too long. We've seen just about every gimmick developers can come up with 1,000 times before, and nothing is fresh to us anymore.
Very good point, I also think that after years to maybe decennia of gaming and many, many thousands to maybe tens of thousands of hours of gaming, that the threshold for getting really excited or satisfied by a game has been raised quite a bit for many veteran gamers, to the point that for them it has to be either some new kind of gameplay that also needs to fall within the taste range of things they like, or something done exceptionally well.
Originally posted by PukeBucket
The game industry at it's core hasn't changed. We still want more than what's offered or able to be offered, and when something is finally well crafted we drop the usual arguments.
I mean does it seem fair to say that Plants vs Zombies, Red Dead Redemption, Castlevania Symphony of the Night, Super Mario Bros, Wizardy, Pong are all great games that can be enjoyed by several generations of gamers? Yeah, it does.
It's all a matter of craftsmanship. No matter the tools or materials availiable.
Also good point.
Someone else mentioned that the gaming industry doesn't bring anything new, and that it's all the same old games and mechanics with a fresh coat of paint, but I can't recall games like Red Dead Redemption, or Ruse, or Portal 2, or Heavy Rain or LA Noire or Flower existing 15-20 years before, if only in the most rudimentary mechanics resemblance if at all. And that's just some examples of current games.
Actually I'd say LA Noire just looks different. The case mechanic and alternating dialogue branches go back to some of the first big "adventure" games if you ask me. It's just an updated presentation.
Red Dead at it's core is a mission based shooter. Presented in a nice package.
I don't think game mechanics have evolved very much. Or even need / have to.
I think Noire is a great example of that. There's nothing really new to the game but the graphics. But it's well crafted, like Maniac Mansion or the King's Quest games, where you find objects and use them to get to the end. With of course a lil' shooter / driver mish-mash that we'd expect from fleshing out the game.
I think good games endure and it's not a matter of generation or year, but the amount of care the creators put in to it.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
You know why the original Star War Trilogy was so much better than the prequels? It's because you were 10 years old and everything is fucking awesome when you're 10 years old.
You've been there. You've done hat. And now you're no longer in the demographic that the game industry caters to. You aren't a surburban white boy between the ages of 14 and 25. It's not the games, it's you.
I've been trying to get this across for years, but it always falls on deaf ears. So here it is one more time. The games are the same brainless fun that they've always been. You've just gotten to old and jaded to participate.
Totally wrong..
For one the Origional Star Was trilogy is still awesome LOL.. the newer ones are ok but dont quite capture the magic..
anyway as for being too old to play games I dont think that is the case at all, I am now 30 and still have just as much fun playing PC games and I know people a lot older that play games as well..
Now I dont play as much as i used to, but thats not because i dont want to its because I have other things to do in RL and RL is a lot more important that any game.
Comments
I have nephews that also like the new not the old as well. I came up after the time period of the original star wars movies myself so I was never a big star wars fan. I tend to prefer more sci fi less space opera. The original movies were designed for kids (ewoks for example). The star wars movies were the transformers / twilight of their day. You simply experience things more intensely as a kid.
However, I have watched a couples episodes of the new animated show with my nephews. The show plot was much deeper than I thought it would be. Hell, they even killed off a character, a girl no less in the episode. The animation quality was pretty good as well.
Unfortunately i wasnt very easy impressed by games or cheesburgers like the writer of the article when i was younger. And the problem is i was 2004 when wow hit the mmorpg scene also very young so i saw the downfall of mmorpgs to casualville own my own. That article is only interessting if you are 30+ years old.
LOL. Really? So which are you? Too old to play or too young to know what you are talking about? If you didn't play games inthe old days, then you can't compare. If you did, then you are just trying to act cool.
The reason kids don't like the earlier movies is because the "graphics suck" or because they are the type of people who thing Tolkien totally ripped off D&D.
I will shut up now since I will be getting a temp ban for saying you are young or some such nonsense so no point in talking until I hurt some mods feelings and get a perma ban. :eyeroll:
Sorry to cut it short, but I found this one to be rather.....awesome.
I mean, isn't that exactly the problem we are having? This is exactly why we complain, why we won't stand for mediocracy no more.
Only to hope that more people might open their eyes and realize that these games aren't worth our money. Probably also why F2P is the new trend.
You are looking at the top recent games. If you click "see all" and "all releases" you get a very different picture. One in which those games are not even in the top 20.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
good job on having no counter-points. you just like to insult, huh? real mature.
nothing in you commnt validates your accusation. why did you even reply?
and saying things like 'and many more' doesn't actually make it so.
anyway, no reason to come back to this thread. i'm full. /burp
The only impact that age has on games in this particular form is that as you grow older your looking more and more from games , and games today are opposite of that ...you give more and more cash and get less and less content and creativity back. Thats why games are getting dull. We need some of the major companies to start making AAA titles that DENY everything that games are today , be creative for god sake...its getting so generic .
Umm how exactly are they getting those facts? When I was 16 my mom paid for my EQ1 account.. so it would seem that she was the actual player. I think those facts are misleading. That or our "adults" are really just a bunch of childish trolls.
Sorry you are wrong, those are the demographics and game companies are targetting older games a lot. And I'm not talking about the fluff on itouch/iphone/ipads as believe it or not they are mainly for the casual and younger gamers. My kids play way more casual games and itouch games than I do. I play my PC games and xbox360 games exclusively. I consider myself a hardcore gamer.
I am in my 40's and all my friends are in their 40's and we all are online gaming whenever we can. As an adult with a job I can buy frequently and nobody limits my time gaming. I was a big gamer as a kid, but actually played much less in my 20's during my party years, before becoming a mega gamer again now that I'm settled down with kids. I barely watch TV, which again is way more geared to kids than gaming is.
The little not-so-secret that gaming companies have figured out is that gamers are skewing older and older. I will be gaming until I die, literally.
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
I'm 37. I kind of see myself as a retired gamer. I play retro games. I love indie games. And I don't see this "dumbing-down" of gaming that everyone is going on about. In terms of graphics and interface, the majority of games are actually BETTER than the older games.
And kids generally don't like older movies because those movies don't speak to their experiences or expectations. Take the first Bond movie and compare it to the first Mission Impossible movie. I think that Mission Impossible is vapid, loud, transparently stupid. Most people under 35 will find Dr. NO to be boring as hell and actually be surprised to discover that it was considered an action movie.
The current crop of games don't suck any worse than the games of 1986. It's just that the new games aren't made to appeal to you anymore.
No. It isn't the problem.
Some customers aren't worth catering to. In the case of grognards, fligh sim pilots, and 'hardcore' MMO players, you're looking at a loud, unpleaseable, shrinking player base. Why would I screw myself by focusing on that market?
Just like with wargames and flight sims, the community is doing way more damage than the designers.
Well my thoughts are this. There may be some truth to what is said but as for me I think my problem with games is that the gaming industry is putting paint over the rust and telling us its a new car. More thoughts are going into the graphics and animations than they are the actual gameplay. As a gamer I have found that I am not liking more games than liking and it has nothing to do with my age other than my wallet being attached to these purchases instead of my parents. It matters now that I have to pump out 50.00 to 60.00 for a game only to realize that the game is boring or lacks playability. Gaming companies want us to pay more and give us less and we want more and pay less. That is why there is starting to be a seperation with the gaming companies and the consumer and such a large demand for FTP online games. Once again just my opinion.
When I was 10 years old the home version of Pong had been out for 2 years. And the first Star Wars movie had only been out for 1 year. We watched and played and supported gaming all the way to where it is now.
I think we're getting wiser quicker than we are getting older. The first time I heard of a subscription for a video game it was weird, I couldn't understand it. Magazines and TV Guide was what subscriptions were for. I don't even remember cable tv back in them days.
It quickly turned into "Only rich folk", "the privileged" could afford them. Some people still only had Black and White tv's. Companies were still using manual exchange switchboards and rotary telephones. A computer was basicly nothing more than a glorified word processor and they cost so much, very few people could afford them, let alone heard of them. It was all sci-fi, or seemed like it anyways.
I don't believe one can ever be to old to play video games. I think it's more of the case that we're getting fed up with what they are doing to videogames and the gamers. The gamers that supported them through the entire evolution of videogaming.
So, you can believe what you want.
Godspeed my fellow gamer
It's hard to develop games for the matured audience, as they are generally composed of more seasoned gamers. They've already been there, have done that, have seen that...so naturally they'll want something new. For the newbies this is a heavenly generation to live in. They'll probably shrug off 16-bit games of the past. For the seasoned ones, who prefer the "depth" and "complexity" of older games, they might rather be able to go back in time.
Anyway, "older", "newer", "these days" are all blurry to me. Where are you guys drawing the line for comparison? You're picking games from a very huge timetable that it seems unclear if games of 2001 still belong to your "these days" or is that part of "old days", along with games prior to that. For me gaming is still the same as it has been. During the NES days there are games that I liked and games I didn't like. All throughout 4 console generations of my gaming it still holds true: I find games that I like and games our there that I didn't like.
Now, on to the "Player age vs Games" argument airing in this thread: The statement "Games suck these days" is highly subjective. I've actually played Chrono Trigger only years after I've finished Chrono Cross, and the former didn't hold up my interest. If I am to ask I'd say CT "sucks" in comparison, but people who have played CT first and loved it will definitely be up my arse. Thing is, it's the same "been there" "done that" experience for me, only in reverse. If it's going to be the same experience I'd go for the one with updated visuals and sound; but if I had played CT first I might be claiming that it has a deeper story and better game mechanics.
It's not so much about age per se (as what I think was perceived based on the replies), but one's gaming experience. You think that games "these days" suck simply because you've been exposed to something similar before. For the people who's just getting into gaming, they're probably as much of a gem as your favorite game when you were getting into gaming.
I'm back! well, only to clarify that I LOVED Ocarina of Time. It was just a really good example to use, I mean they literally re-released this game 3 or 4 times (twice for different consoles). I highly doubt I'm too old for games but I might just be expecting too much, I'll concede that at least.
"LOL"
I see the logic here. I suppose my opinion would be that I don't see the drastic leaps in overall quality of the TOP end titles. Where newer gamers or less seasoned gamers wouldn't see or know the difference. The quote would be, "Ignorance is bliss." sounds true enough. I wouldn't call that being jaded or bitter, it just sucks to have to wait so many years for games designed for smart eer...more experienced gamers.
"LOL"
I'm not sure it's so much that we're getting "too old" for video games as it is we've just been playing them for too long. We've seen just about every gimmick developers can come up with 1,000 times before, and nothing is fresh to us anymore.
For the record, I saw the original SW trilogy when I was 5 and each new movie when it came out in theaters, and I must say that I appreciate both trilogies. The're equally as good for different reasons.
I play HL: mods, more than I play CoX which I pay $15 a month for... I blame the trending greed and laziness that is becoming more and more popular with each generation.
Another trend is the "Why innovate, when you imitate" line of development, playing games that only embellish the core aspects of previous games is getting rather old.
There's plent of innovation left, a simple thought is why we don't have an intuitive freeform action combat based mmo set in modern themed era?
Huh?
So....gamers aren't worth catering to? I mean...who else is left?
The styles of games.
The pros and cons of being a game consumer.
Nothing has really changed.
I mean even if you want to cite graphics; viziophiles had their ohhs, boos, and ahhs back in the day as well. I mean I wouldn't be surprised if some of those guys quit when they saw the animation gave to us when Earthworm Jim launched.
Cracked.com doesn't create gospel. I've met some of those guys; many don't even half-heartedly care about the subject they write about. They see what's being discussed in the trendy parts of the murky areas of the interwebs, and they generate interest.
That's what they've done here.
I don't even find the argument (used in a positive manner) that much compelling any more no matter who is discussing it.
The game industry at it's core hasn't changed. We still want more than what's offered or able to be offered, and when something is finally well crafted we drop the usual arguments.
I mean does it seem fair to say that Plants vs Zombies, Red Dead Redemption, Castlevania Symphony of the Night, Super Mario Bros, Wizardy, Pong are all great games that can be enjoyed by several generations of gamers? Yeah, it does.
It's all a matter of craftsmanship. No matter the tools or materials availiable.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
You know what the problem in your argumentation to me? its because you kind of compare incomparable stuff, who would compare a 1930 car with a 2010 car? Its the same for games, such rpg games like Ultima serie were just awesome games for their time, period. Just like league of legend is an awesome game for its time, maybe its nothing really that innovative blabla, but its composition and the way it is delivered just make it a good game. Mmos are on the button now, they are all too old and crappy and horribly designed. You can claim all you want that AoC is a great game compare to UO, but the fact is Uo compare to all the rpg games at his time was a genius work, Aoc compared to other games around is just a peace of shit. So if you have to compare stuff, compare it with something relevant, if you do so your thread just doesn't even worth posting in it.
Very good point, I also think that after years to maybe decennia of gaming and many, many thousands to maybe tens of thousands of hours of gaming, that the threshold for getting really excited or satisfied by a game has been raised quite a bit for many veteran gamers, to the point that for them it has to be either some new kind of gameplay that also needs to fall within the taste range of things they like, or something done exceptionally well.
Also good point.
Someone else mentioned that the gaming industry doesn't bring anything new, and that it's all the same old games and mechanics with a fresh coat of paint, but I can't recall games like Red Dead Redemption, or Ruse, or Portal 2, or Heavy Rain or LA Noire or Flower existing 15-20 years before, if only in the most rudimentary mechanics resemblance if at all. And that's just some examples of current games.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Wrong on all counts.
Your link is wrong, games are crappier these days.
And your wrong about Star Wars, the original 3 are better.
Even music has gotten crappier, here watch this link as proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tveUDzP35qc
Actually I'd say LA Noire just looks different. The case mechanic and alternating dialogue branches go back to some of the first big "adventure" games if you ask me. It's just an updated presentation.
Red Dead at it's core is a mission based shooter. Presented in a nice package.
I don't think game mechanics have evolved very much. Or even need / have to.
I think Noire is a great example of that. There's nothing really new to the game but the graphics. But it's well crafted, like Maniac Mansion or the King's Quest games, where you find objects and use them to get to the end. With of course a lil' shooter / driver mish-mash that we'd expect from fleshing out the game.
I think good games endure and it's not a matter of generation or year, but the amount of care the creators put in to it.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
Totally wrong..
For one the Origional Star Was trilogy is still awesome LOL.. the newer ones are ok but dont quite capture the magic..
anyway as for being too old to play games I dont think that is the case at all, I am now 30 and still have just as much fun playing PC games and I know people a lot older that play games as well..
Now I dont play as much as i used to, but thats not because i dont want to its because I have other things to do in RL and RL is a lot more important that any game.
I guess you realise that when you get older.