BF2S Forums Gaming 10 years ago versus gaming of today. ( good reading)

Being a 32yr old gamer,i have witnessed this trend and agree with u totally.Oblivion is the only game that still lets me believe there is still hope for the future of gaming..)

I hate to say this but i think a lot of the change in 'online tendencies' is due to the different age groups involved. Back in the late 80's when I started computing in general was still the very geeky thing to dabble in, nowadays it has achieved a status whereby one is not shunned for being 'in to computers'. Hell companies, not naming any names (rhymes with dock far) have done a fantastic job at appealing to youngsters and as a result killed off the whole solidarity and caring built in the early days.
No doubt part of me is nostalgic about the old days (and no doubt this is influencing what i'm saying) but there has definatly been a change in the make up of the lan's I go to and thats been in the last 7 years. The first few were small events where you 'finally get to see what they all look like' with the majority of peeps being around (at the time) the 17  - 22 traditional geek stock. You had a laugh, no doubt ended up drunk and at some point played some games. Now whenever I go along to try and meet up with peeps at a lan its filled with children below the age of 17 getting wasted, acting like prats and taking the game waaaay to seriously. It really isn't a good transition.
I think I may have gone off on a bit of a tangent but I do agree with the original post, I too think something has changed and I think its mostly due to the increasing light show and maybe not different age group but certainly different type of child getting involved. I don't think its for the best and sadly, I don't see it getting any better any time soon.

You're going to be an eye doctor specialistx2324? Maybe you can make Marco a bionic eye!

I'm a recent addition ito the world of computer gaming. Think 2002 - BF1942 Wake Island Demo. I guess this means I don't have a high expectation when it comes to computer games. Thankfully this means that I'm frequently amazed when something truly brilliant, (or even quasi-brilliant,) is presented to me. You talked about works of art specialistx2324 and I agree, but just like a medium such as film, there are the arty ones, and then there are the snakes on planes.

I like time and effort put into games, and I can definatly tell the difference between a 'capitalist' game and a 'real' one. The Battefield series I think stopped being a real game when "Secret Weapons of WWII" came out. It's still a lot of fun to play these non-real games, but they arn't the same as a game like Half-Life.

Games that are 'real' are ones you can talk about the storyline, or just gawp open mouthed at when you finish, (or stop playing for a breather,) and Battlefield hasn't had that for me since the core 1942. I realise that BF2142 is mass produced ill-thought-out low-art, but I'll still enjoy it.  Honestly, multiplayer games now arn't thought out - they don't have to have a storyline. They're quick and easy and they bring in money.

You can still enjoy non-real games, but it is important to know the difference.

Back in 2002 I played Battlefield 1942 quite a few hours a day. Wait a minute, I still do! Why you say? Because it is fun.

I agree with you 100% specialistx2324. Gaming today has evolved drastically since it's early years. I remember my first console, Nintendo. Yes, the gray box Nintendo. I remember how excited I was when my dad brought it home and hooked it up to the T.V. and we played Battletoads long into the night. Those days are long gone, and I realize that, but I can still whip out the ol' Nintendo and play my heart out. Why you say? Because it is fun.

Good post, I agree.

Greatly enjoyed reading your post.

Maybe one could make a distinction in the gameplay experience between Single-play games, like the early generation of games were, and the Multiplay games, like the ones we play now: BF2, Call of Duty, WoW.

I think you mixed up those fond memories of the earlier singleplay games with the annoyances of the multiplay game.
The was no interference in those singleplayer games like Doom, Duke Nukem, and so on, it was just you and the storyline/suspense. I played the ones you mentioned too, among Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Outlaws, Redneck Rampage   as FPS-ers (1st person shooters).

These modern games , Delta Force series springs to mind,  and also  BF2 do not have a storyline to a singleplay story, they are made for Multiplay solely.
Marketing the games to  younger (former) console players seems/is apparently more important than to develop games for the "hardcore-PC-gamer". Thanks to EA among others

About 10 years ago there was a quite clear distinction between PC games, and Playstation console games.

Now these two worlds have blended more into one, so did the group of players mixed.

In my opinion these 2 group of players do not mix that well together in multiplayer games:
1. PC platformers:  adults,  more mature, often well educated,  25 or older players
2. Playstation/consolers: schoolkids, young and very young,10 to 20 year old, impulsive, fast and furious

We just have to live with it i guess.

Last edited by MajorHoulahan_MASH (2006-10-06 18:29:14)

First you say:

specialistx2324 wrote:

One thing that games had back then was “a serious load of replay factor” PAC man is a game released in the late 70’s and you would go to an arcade joint and see people spend hundreds of dollars playing it for hours even days on end.

Then you say:

specialistx2324 wrote:

People play games not for fun anymore. They play because its an addiction.

So you are saying my playing BF2 for a couple hours every night is an addiction, but PACMAN for days on end wasn't? Or my friend playing EQ for 8 hours a day is that much different?

specialistx2324 wrote:

Game replayability and gaming content: Both these concepts have changed in my opinion for the worst. Games 20 years ago had so much replay value and it was not about the money.  Games today have an average of 4-5 days of replay value. Example: I beat FEAR in 2 days and only played for an extra day.

So maybe single player FPS isn't your thing... Try Bejeweled, or Slingo. People play those with the same attitude as 1980's gamers played PACMAN and Missle Command... But sometimes, the replay value of today is DIFFERENT than it was back then. F.E.A.R. has TONS of replay value... At LAN parties... We host monthly LAN parties through where I work, and F.E.A.R. is one of the top 2 requested games every month.

specialistx2324 wrote:

Half Life One from 1998-1999 took me 3 weeks to beat, and it was the final awesome game of that generation.

If time it takes to beat a game is what you are judging by, try an RPG. The Final Fantasy games, for example, can take weeks for most people to "beat" and then still not have anything.

specialistx2324 wrote:

Game Design: I remember the days when Voodoo 3DFX cards owned the market. For a card that had a 16MB of video memory, game designers did a whole lot in terms of graphics engine.

specialistx2324 wrote:

It was about game play rather than special effects.

Well was it about the graphics or not? I remember everyone oohing and awwing over the graphics in DOOM, and Half Life just as much as modern people ooh and aww over DOOM 3 and Half Life 2. As improvements happen, so does what it takes to impress us.

specialistx2324 wrote:

Gaming design has drifted from good story lines and replay value to having the most special effects. That is what made The Matrix a viable movie to see to a certain point.

The first Matrix movie was awesome in terms of writing, acting, cinematography, editing, and more. Now, if you used the second Matrix movie as your example here, I would agree... It was just eye-candy. But it also died off quicker because of it.

specialistx2324 wrote:

Game designers of today are worried more about having all the nice graphics, sound, lights, animation, rather than substance.

Again, check out the RPG world. Nice substance. Or check out the POPCAP world. Replay without "shock and awe."

specialistx2324 wrote:

There is one game in my mind that has awesome replay value of the early 90’s, an awesome story line and killer graphics and lighting.: MAX PAYNE. That game won as much as 50 awards and not one game since then has ever beaten it.

Funny you brought this game up. One of the first games to use "bullet-time" (ripped off from that Matrix movie you didn't care much for) the vast majority of the awards were for graphics, sound, and "fireworks." Not replay value...  After its initial hype, it also often had the word "overrated" associated with it.

specialistx2324 wrote:

Star Wars Knight of the Old republic came pretty close. As they say: Close is not enough.

A good example of a good story driven modern day game. I would put SW:KotOR up against 80's games any day of the week... Eat pellets while wondering through a maze, or immerse yourself in a world where you make decisions and can be good or evil. Not to mention trash people with lightsabers...

specialistx2324 wrote:

Ask yourself this question: If Battlefield 2 were to be a game of the past rather than a game of today, would you see the same crap that you see now? The answer is absolutely NO. Look at all the nonsense that you see in todays society . None of that crap existed 10-20 years ago. People who played laser tag back then don’t shoot teammates unless they are blind and stupid. Back then, there were a small number of multiplayer games, people had fun for the most part. Hardly anyone flamed each other. People just want to enjoy good competition and sportsmanship

specialistx2324 wrote:

Gamers for the most part back in the day had respect for each other. Now gamers are saying “Fuck you this and Fuck you that”. OMG you dumb ass noob stop teamkilling me for a J-10 plane… Did this crap happened back in the early 90’s and 2000’s > HELL NO.

If you believe this, you are poorly mistaken. Ever generation for last 150 years has talked about how bad things are getting. But I prefer living in this time, over getting shot in the back in the Wild West. Ten years ago, I was playing Quake and Quake 2. And people would jack over their teammates on a regular basis for as little reason as in today's BF2. Get into the Team Fortress world and it only gets worse. "That sniper stole my kill! I am going to see how he likes a 'nade up there." or "The flamethrower hit me with splash damage! Kill him!"
In Decent 2, there were whole clans set up for the sole purpose of trash talking. The theory was, if you could get people mad enough, it hurt their dogfighting skills.
I also played paintball ten years ago. I saw a player shoot his teammate in the crotch because he thought it was funny. He wasn't even "wanting the plane" like on BF2... He just thought it would be funny... This type of stuff happened all the time.

The simple fact of the matter is, more people have internet connections, more people are playing online games, and so more jerks are going to be online at any given time. 95% of a server may be awesome people who would never TK. But that other 2.5% per team will probably whine and shoot you out of a cockpit so they can fly a plane. 10 years ago, 5% of a 16 player server was less than 1 player per server. Today's larger 64 player enviroments bring that 5% up to over 3 people per server.

specialistx2324 wrote:

Games are supposed to be stories acted out in front of you in front of a video screen.

Wrong. Games are supposed to be fun. Monopoly is a game, but there is no story to it. Uno is a game, again no story. Your example of PACMAN, or other older popular games like Metroid, Donkey Kong, Contra, Super Mario Brothers didn't really have stories as much as basic ideas. Mario going though 8 different levels of worlds and constantly finding the wrong Princess isn't a story, it is a running gag. You don't get cutscreens with major revelations thoughout the older games, but you do in more modern stuff. F.E.A.R. (which you dismissed earlier) has more storyline to it than 90% of the 80's and 90's games combined. Every game is not a Wing Commander or a Freespace, but then again, when those came out that was still true. You can't take the absolute best games from the last 30 years and compare them to "all modern games in general." That would be like comparing Aliens (1986) with modern day Starship Troopers 2 (2004), and saying all movies were better in the 80s.
Like the number of players have grown, the number of games have grown. You just have to weed out more crap to fine the good stuff. Some Atari games like "E.T" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" sucked more than anything modern, and guess what? Those were made for money. Even way way back in the 80's money was still the reason companies stayed in business. It just so happens that today, the Video Game industry makes as much money as the movie industry.

specialistx2324 wrote:

Blizzard Entertainment had ways to make sure that everyone got along with each other in WoW, and dealt with issues between players harshly.  They sure don’t want a bunch of morons flaming each other in the in-game chat.. Does DICE have that kind of measure-----NOOOOO.

Sure they do. Its called giving admins the power to choose how they run their server. There are language filters that could be turned on. And anyone can run a server just about however they want to run it. If you are a server admin, and you want to ban someone from your server because you find them offensive, then do so. You have that power. Even in WoW people have ways of messing with you that get around official rules. it still takes an admin to do something about it. I would prefer games like BF2 be hosted on servers that don't have a monthly fee, so I am fine with DICE not paying police to keep everyone in check.

specialistx2324 wrote:

Ten years ago if a game comes out and its sequel comes out 6-8 months later, people would not buy that crap right out of the shelf. People wont buy it period. And its sad for people to buy Battlefield 2142 less than a year after BF2 came out.

Off the top of my head, I can think of Quake and Quake 2 coming out just over a year apart. And Quake 2 was a hot title upon release. I do agree with you though that 2142 should at least have a vamped up engine instead of looking like a mod of the same game.

***EDIT*** This part of the conversation got me and a couple friends talking, so we looked up a few games that we thought fit into this category.

DOOM came out in Dec '93
DOOM 2 came out in Sep '94 - Less than a year and still popular.

Descent came out in Feb '95
Descent 2 came out in Feb '96 - A year and still popular.

Quake came out in May '96
Quake 2 came out in Nov '97 - 1 1/2 years and still popular.

BF2 came out in Jun '05
BF2142 is coming out in Oct '06. - Almost 1 1/2 years, and all the pre-sale dogtag thingies I wanted were sold out in the first presale week...

***End Edit***

specialistx2324 wrote:

And it is sad that each day I find myself letting go of this hobbie because of the morons that have pissed all over it. Gaming is in my blood, but it is something I wont be doing forever. Too much stupidity and compromise from gaming companies and players alike.  Being obsessed of video gaming takes away the fun and helping your friends have fun, not pissing each other off.

This sounds like me a few years ago, playing EQ. Let me give you an honest, want to help you piece of advice. If games are making you this frustrated, they aren't worth it. I felt like this about EQ, and wanted to quit games all together. I eventually moved on to EQ2 and felt it even more. I then played WoW and it just kept on coming. Then, right before I finally gave up gaming all together, I played Burnout. And then BF2. And then Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle Earth. And I discovered that if I play, just to have fun, I have fun. I can get together with friends, and go at it, and have a good time. But if I even start feeling the way you are obviously feeling right now, I will move on. It doesn't matter how much time I have invested, or how loyal I think I need to be to guilds, clans, friends, etc. If I am not enjoying it, I won't play it. The beauty of BF2 is that I can jump in, and instantly play. If I find a server with too many conceited or arrogant people that ruin the game for me, I can usually go to another server, or just quit for the night, with the knowledge that it probably won't be like that tomorrow. No need to get so frustrated with it that I hate it because of a few jet-hogs or chopper thieves.

specialistx2324 wrote:

I know I will be flamed for this… but  at least allow me to say what I believe and what I feel . give me a chance to challenge what is wrong with gaming today and help make it right.

I also hope you don't take this as a flame. I read your statement, and honestly thought about it. This is what I believe and how I feel. Gaming is not perfect, but I felt you were one-sided on your post. I understand this probably comes from frustration, and while I agree with a lot of what you said, there is no way I am throwing out my PC and hooking my Atari back up. Unless you can honestly stand to do that yourself, maybe gaming today really is an imperfect step in the right direction.

Last edited by HITNRUNXX (2006-10-06 21:00:16)

SuperMarioBros and Zelda series.

combat, atari 2600 (10yo)

Last edited by jsnipy (2006-10-06 21:59:46)

HITNRUNXX wrote:

Post

Agree with this guy 100%.
To the original poster.
Times change, graphics change and so does the markets, sure theres alot of crap games out there but there also was in the 80's. Every game I have bought (which isn't many) have been quality games which I love. Lots I havent bought have been good and those that weren't I don't care because they were free and cost be the time to install and try out. If you don't like a particular game don't buy it, if you have doubts try it at a Lan or get it with a refundable agreement, try it out for a few days and return it if its not to your liking. There are some very good games out there today, its just a matter of what you like and whats avaliable.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2006-10-06 20:01:35)

iNeedUrFace4Soup wrote:

I had a computer that ran off cassette tapes and only played text based adventure games.

Oops, went too far back in time.

ahem.. not really that far  lol..

i had an atari 800 xl.. cost me 1200 bucks... yup.. i remember the cassette tape thingy.. i remember NOT being able to afford even THAT!!!  lol... so.. what did i do?  remember those magazines that had 3 or four pages of code that you could spend hours typing in the special characters? then when you finally got done and try to run.. the dam thing errored out because somewhere in those thousands of special characters... one or two werent correct?  and back then there wasnt a debug feature that brought you at or near the buggy line...

lol good dtimes

evilcartman99 wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

combat, atari 2600

I played a jungle game on Atari, it was really cool, it's featured in an episode of South Park.

Pittfall?