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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
No. You are totally off base.
There is no "true" preference. The truth is my "preference is x" and "your preference is y".
This is different than science where the goal is to be able to predict. That is objective if you can match data to theory.
Preference is obviously not the same. Ask 100 people if The Avenger is a good movie ... many will say "yes" and some "not". To the ones who do not, it is "truly" not a good movie.
And given the flames here, common ground is not possible. Heck, there is little common ground between you and me. I say slow travel is very bad. Do you agree? I believe LFR is very good. Do you agree?
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.
No. You are totally off base.
There is no "true" preference. The truth is my "preference is x" and "your preference is y".
This is different than science where the goal is to be able to predict. That is objective if you can match data to theory.
Preference is obviously not the same. Ask 100 people if The Avenger is a good movie ... many will say "yes" and some "not". To the ones who do not, it is "truly" not a good movie.
And given the flames here, common ground is not possible. Heck, there is little common ground between you and me. I say slow travel is very bad. Do you agree? I believe LFR is very good. Do you agree?
Puzzles in the likes of the SH games are good but as I said that's indie, you will find many real adventure games in the indie scene. AG came back as an indie scene, but I am talking about mainstream here. It is the big guys who are putting puzzles down the list and making Adventure Games all about story and atmosphere. I should clarify that both of those are key elements for a AG as well, but you will notice the one thing that is difficult for players, puzzles is being side lined. Once again another example of games having their difficulty dumbed down and there is no slider for puzzles, so I am not sure the new wave of AG from the big publishers is yet deserving of that name.
I did use the example of science, I can see why you think that's off base, but it was not what I am getting at. Science aims for a consensus of opinion, that's not what I am aiming at. When I talked about common ground, I meant ensuring the arguments remain rational and reasons were given for them. Not just "I don't like this." I see gaming as more like politics, players have rather entrenched views. Reaching a consensus in political thought does not happen often, but the arguments put forward are rational not "I don't like that." That's the only way we can see how much common ground there is.
Looking at your examples, there are reasons why people think slow travel is bad. I can think of three types of slow travel in fact. One where it takes a long time and you don't have to be at the PC (SWG shuttle trips). Another where you have to be at your PC but do not do much (changing horses while cross country riding in DAOC). Finally one where travel say on a mount, you are doing all the direction and it takes a while to get where you need to go.
So you see already it is not just like or don't like. For me there is good gameplay in taking a mount to a far of location. Having a down time in DAOC where you could not really leave the screen was pointless. When it comes to the likes of shuttle waits they too were pointless to my mind, but I know others who went and did a house chore or whatever, they utilised the time better.
So what is a long wait? A one minute transfer, 5 minutes? For me anything over a minute would be pushing it, but if I was in a group and people were chatting then 5 mins would be fine. So again, it is why we like or dislike elements of gameplay that allows others to see if there is any common ground.
As I said before there are areas of life where views are way more entrenched and far more subjective than gaming. Just saying its all subjective and throwing up your hands is defeatist.
One major reason why a lot of people think that older MMOs were better is because they started playing MMOs back then so they tend to have a first love relationship with their first mmo. This is why a lot of people will tell you that EQ is the best thing since sliced bread. In reality it's not and they just love it and are nostalgic about it because it was their first mmo. From there they start to make wild generalisations about other MMOs. Same can be said for people who started with wow or any other mmo. All this lead to significant bias.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Originally posted by fivoroth One major reason why a lot of people think that older MMOs were better is because they started playing MMOs back then so they tend to have a first love relationship with their first mmo. This is why a lot of people will tell you that EQ is the best thing since sliced bread. In reality it's not and they just love it and are nostalgic about it because it was their first mmo. From there they start to make wild generalisations about other MMOs. Same can be said for people who started with wow or any other mmo. All this lead to significant bias.
One of the worst arguments on the internet. Think about everything else in your life.
First car? Mine was a Chevy Monza, piece of crap, it isn't better than my 2012 Nissan Frontier.
First bicycle? - A great 24" Schwinn, can't hold a candle to my new 21 speed Street cruiser
First Computer? Trash 80 (or IBM PC Compatible) - Seriously, my current old laptop can practically launch the space shuttle.
First Calculator? 1975, cost $100.00, you can buy same functionality for less than $20.00 and for $100, it is a virtual computer.
First Cellphone? C'mon, it made phone calls, period, compared to the current products, might as well have been a brick.
So why do I like all of the modern version of the above products more than their early predecessors? Because they all have undergone an significant evolution and improved in features and quality many times over, and they are clearly superior.
Now, let's look at Modern MMORPG's vs their forebears. Sure, there's been improvements in graphics, interfaces, but when it comes to design features, they've had much stripped out of them that I favored in the earlier title.
Game mechanics that encouraged grouping and socialization, complexity in character builds, differences in racial stats, open world PVP, variances in armor/weapon damage types and a significant reason to use one over another depending on the situation.
Let's examine that last one for a minute. Take DAOC and how archery works, did you know that in addition to being able to use bows which can have stats to improve their damage by adding fire, ice or other abilities, but there actually are 3 different types of arrows, each doing additional damage determined by the armor type of the opponent. One works well against leather, the 2nd against chain, the 3rd against plate with everything destroying cloth.
They largely have taken these and many other mechanics that I enjoyed (I liked longer travel times) out from current MMO's to streamline them and make them more appealing to a broader target audience.
People say EVE is nothing but a spreadsheet game, believe me, we were using spreadsheets in DAOC long before EVE came along to calculate our builds and I'm still using them today.
It would be akin to my first car being a 2002 top end BMW but now I'm being asked to drive a base model 2013 Camry. Sure, the new Camry would have features the BMW lacked in the day, but it still doesn't match up to the luxury car of 10 years ago.
So stop pointing to the "first game" syndrome, its more a fiction than reality. Fact is, many peoples first games were quite different, arguably more complicated and more involved, and provided challenges they cannot find today, not even in those older titles which have been largely turned into shells of their former selves. (which is why I play a private shard reset to 2003 rules).
Strangely enough, even vanilla WOW falls into this category, the title has changed some much since it's early days, it's almost not recognizable to people who played back then, so if that was their first MMO even they feel that something is largely lacking from current MMORPG offerings.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
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.
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?
well said
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
As we are comparing older games to new games, and not a piece of paper, that non-argument is completely bogus.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No. You are totally off base.
There is no "true" preference. The truth is my "preference is x" and "your preference is y".
This is different than science where the goal is to be able to predict. That is objective if you can match data to theory.
Preference is obviously not the same. Ask 100 people if The Avenger is a good movie ... many will say "yes" and some "not". To the ones who do not, it is "truly" not a good movie.
And given the flames here, common ground is not possible. Heck, there is little common ground between you and me. I say slow travel is very bad. Do you agree? I believe LFR is very good. Do you agree?
Puzzles in the likes of the SH games are good but as I said that's indie, you will find many real adventure games in the indie scene. AG came back as an indie scene, but I am talking about mainstream here. It is the big guys who are putting puzzles down the list and making Adventure Games all about story and atmosphere. I should clarify that both of those are key elements for a AG as well, but you will notice the one thing that is difficult for players, puzzles is being side lined. Once again another example of games having their difficulty dumbed down and there is no slider for puzzles, so I am not sure the new wave of AG from the big publishers is yet deserving of that name.
I did use the example of science, I can see why you think that's off base, but it was not what I am getting at. Science aims for a consensus of opinion, that's not what I am aiming at. When I talked about common ground, I meant ensuring the arguments remain rational and reasons were given for them. Not just "I don't like this." I see gaming as more like politics, players have rather entrenched views. Reaching a consensus in political thought does not happen often, but the arguments put forward are rational not "I don't like that." That's the only way we can see how much common ground there is.
Looking at your examples, there are reasons why people think slow travel is bad. I can think of three types of slow travel in fact. One where it takes a long time and you don't have to be at the PC (SWG shuttle trips). Another where you have to be at your PC but do not do much (changing horses while cross country riding in DAOC). Finally one where travel say on a mount, you are doing all the direction and it takes a while to get where you need to go.
So you see already it is not just like or don't like. For me there is good gameplay in taking a mount to a far of location. Having a down time in DAOC where you could not really leave the screen was pointless. When it comes to the likes of shuttle waits they too were pointless to my mind, but I know others who went and did a house chore or whatever, they utilised the time better.
So what is a long wait? A one minute transfer, 5 minutes? For me anything over a minute would be pushing it, but if I was in a group and people were chatting then 5 mins would be fine. So again, it is why we like or dislike elements of gameplay that allows others to see if there is any common ground.
As I said before there are areas of life where views are way more entrenched and far more subjective than gaming. Just saying its all subjective and throwing up your hands is defeatist.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
One of the worst arguments on the internet. Think about everything else in your life.
First car? Mine was a Chevy Monza, piece of crap, it isn't better than my 2012 Nissan Frontier.
First bicycle? - A great 24" Schwinn, can't hold a candle to my new 21 speed Street cruiser
First Computer? Trash 80 (or IBM PC Compatible) - Seriously, my current old laptop can practically launch the space shuttle.
First Calculator? 1975, cost $100.00, you can buy same functionality for less than $20.00 and for $100, it is a virtual computer.
First Cellphone? C'mon, it made phone calls, period, compared to the current products, might as well have been a brick.
So why do I like all of the modern version of the above products more than their early predecessors? Because they all have undergone an significant evolution and improved in features and quality many times over, and they are clearly superior.
Now, let's look at Modern MMORPG's vs their forebears. Sure, there's been improvements in graphics, interfaces, but when it comes to design features, they've had much stripped out of them that I favored in the earlier title.
Game mechanics that encouraged grouping and socialization, complexity in character builds, differences in racial stats, open world PVP, variances in armor/weapon damage types and a significant reason to use one over another depending on the situation.
Let's examine that last one for a minute. Take DAOC and how archery works, did you know that in addition to being able to use bows which can have stats to improve their damage by adding fire, ice or other abilities, but there actually are 3 different types of arrows, each doing additional damage determined by the armor type of the opponent. One works well against leather, the 2nd against chain, the 3rd against plate with everything destroying cloth.
They largely have taken these and many other mechanics that I enjoyed (I liked longer travel times) out from current MMO's to streamline them and make them more appealing to a broader target audience.
People say EVE is nothing but a spreadsheet game, believe me, we were using spreadsheets in DAOC long before EVE came along to calculate our builds and I'm still using them today.
It would be akin to my first car being a 2002 top end BMW but now I'm being asked to drive a base model 2013 Camry. Sure, the new Camry would have features the BMW lacked in the day, but it still doesn't match up to the luxury car of 10 years ago.
So stop pointing to the "first game" syndrome, its more a fiction than reality. Fact is, many peoples first games were quite different, arguably more complicated and more involved, and provided challenges they cannot find today, not even in those older titles which have been largely turned into shells of their former selves. (which is why I play a private shard reset to 2003 rules).
Strangely enough, even vanilla WOW falls into this category, the title has changed some much since it's early days, it's almost not recognizable to people who played back then, so if that was their first MMO even they feel that something is largely lacking from current MMORPG offerings.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
the reason I have fond memories of EQ is because of the community
EQ is a "time sink" game
time sinks do help foster community when players need assistance from each other
EQ2 fan sites
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky