Do you normally play older games or new games?

[DrSpike]

I would also add to my earlier post that expectations have changed. Before the onset of online forums balance considerations were far less pressing. When I played great games of the past I just played. Now as a hardened gamer I might say the game has potential but balance issues are here, here, here and here, which need to be fixed before the game can be called a success.

As I said above we can all think of games where substance has been forsaken for eye-candy. However as someone who, despite the feathers I may ruffle by poking fun at certain games ( ), genuinely does speak from the experience of many many years of happy gaming, I would say overall gaming today is the best it has ever been. It is always easy to be nostalgic about the past........there were many flaws in even some of the great old games mentioned here; sometimes we just overlooked them.

Sure you have to be careful today that you don't buy Big Rigs and co, but it truly was always thus. Yeah, easy patching can and so often does make companies lazier, but glaring bugs in games in days gone by were often never fixed. Yeah I don't feel allegiance to gaming companies as I would have in previous years, but there are a couple of notable exceptions. Ultimately, when comparing like with like, such as the upper tails of the quality distribution in 2 eras, the good, I feel, outweighs the bad.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by child of Thor
well i just missed out on the valve generation, i was there with the first silicon though.........

Pong/Zx81/Pacman etc - i've played many games on many platforms

And i'll keep playing till i'm old and grey

well i have played the "game" of card punching. Not something i ever want to do again.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
well i have played the "game" of card punching. Not something i ever want to do again.

lucky you!!

And Dr.Spike , sometimes i get a bit harsh on new games and the companies making them.

Remember all the awful movie tie-ins from the 80's !! - hundreds of awful platform/scrolling games would come out, so it was as easy to be ripped of back then.

Still a game was £10 max......ok it was 20 years ago! And atleast these days its the norm for companies to release a couple of patches if the games need it.

Still i stand by my general feeling that things should be better.
We've had 20+ years of gaming experience to help get it right.
We've had 20+ years of hardware and technological improvements to help make the best games ever.

But something in the process isn't right.

As we the fans have become more involved in the process(through game forums etc), we can see that often its not the actual guys programming/designing the game that cause the problems; its the publishing companies/money behind the whole process that seem to be the main culprits in a lot of cases.

I'm actualy as critical now of games as i was back when i started. Its not rocket science to know when a game was good or bad - at least with places like poly etc the gamers now have a place to go to get real non-biased views on any new games, so the stinkers get weeded out.
This is a very important aspect that game publishers should really begin to understand.
We tend to be called the 'hard-core' and a minority of the games buying public, but its funny that that minority can actualy sink a game if its no good(CTP2/Moo3 for example).

IMo until attitudes from the publishers change/relax then THEY are the ones going to loose out in the medium to long run. The game developers themselves loose out in the short run(which is why so many are going bust or are getting bought out at the momment).

I'm kinda sorry for them in a way - we're a tough crowd to please

[DrSpike]

Alas CoT, much of the reason why companies don't always listen to the hardcore community is that they don't have to. The relative increase in casual gamers has meant the market reality is that they have more incentive than in the past to aim games towards them rather than me.

I know I annoy some people with my Sunday gamer tirades, but at the heart of the joke lies a painful nugget of truth.

But even so, this development IMO only acts to partially counteract the increase in potential for games - I still think overall gaming is better than it's ever been. Perhaps we can agree that it does not always fulfil its potential however, or potential as serious gamers define it. That's the crux, the gaming world has just changed, and we must accept that.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I know I annoy some people with my Sunday gamer tirades

I have no idea who you could be referring to by that.

[duke o' york]

I only own three PC games.
Civ 2 (er, the reason I got my laptop ), Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2 (both of which Jamski made me buy - honestly - he came round to my house and twisted my fingers until I ordered both ). I had Civ 3, but gave it away without playing it. I may get it again at some point, but maybe I'll just wait until Civ 4 arrives.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns

I have no idea who you could be referring to by that.

Trust Skanky to try and turn a serious debate into spam.

Anyway I didn't think you were one.

[child of Thor]

I don’t think the gaming world is actually doing as well as it believes. It’s all short-term gains. Its easy to hide behind figures - there is a lot of money floating around in games, but its not in the right places – not for good long term prospects.

Mainstream is definitely in the casual gaming arena - which is ok, for a while - you'll never build the kind of customer loyalty we have seen in the past with this group of people though. And if you turn out enough naf games with this group, they'll just go find something more interesting to do and spend money on.

I actually want this trend to continue - it will create a much more creative and decent market share for those wanting to produce games for serious gamers again
Whilst moving all the big games publishers out the way. They most likely will jump into bed with Hollywood - to produce those amazing interactive movie ‘games’, a bit like the old 'Dragon's Lair' games, but better looking of course.

That’s my prediction for the next 4-5 years –

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Alas CoT, much of the reason why companies don't always listen to the hardcore community is that they don't have to. The relative increase in casual gamers has meant the market reality is that they have more incentive than in the past to aim games towards them rather than me.

An INCREASE in casual gamers?? With PC game shelf space declining at all the retail outlets where one would expect casual gamers to buy games ( I presume casuals gamers arent driving internet sales)? Youre either referring mainly to console games, or your base is more than 6 years ago, or Im missing something. "The Sims" apart, these last 3 or 4 years havent been great years for casual gaming, I dont think. PC gaming is becoming more of a niche. Or maybe whats happening is that we're losing the "middle" IE we have hardcore grognard wargames sold over the net at one end, and RTS clones at the other, but no Panzer Generals, and too few Age of Kings. We have incredibly complex society simulators like the Paradox series at one end, and Tycoon games at the other, but no SMAC's, and Civ3 was a disappointment. Im not sure how this plays out in other genres. And of course theres no data on "casual game" sales - indeed even the total annual PC game sales is not easy to comeby (anyone here have it)

[DrSpike]

You are wrong LotM. PC games today are aimed more at the casual gamer than at any other time in the past. Most people have PCs at home, which has created the market. I wont try and quantify the percentages, because I don't know. That's why I said relatively this group has grown, say, over the last 10 years, and in my view this is undeniably true.

In an aside to CoT I would reiterate that, as much as I don't like it, it is naive to believe the companies are not acting in their own best interests.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike
You are wrong LotM. PC games today are aimed more at the casual gamer than at any other time in the past. Most people have PCs at home, which has created the market. I wont try and quantify the percentages, because I don't know. That's why I said relatively this group has grown, say, over the last 10 years, and in my view this is undeniably true.

.

Oh over the last 10 years, maybe. Versus say 1994. But I would guess that PC casual game sales peaked sometime btween 1997 and 2001. Depends on how you define it. Family games, plus tycoon games, plus the Sims? Do we toss in RTS games? Surely not all - lots of RTS players who are anything but casual. Some RTS games? Myst? Pretty popular, but not all that easy (well maybe its just me ) and i think it has players who take it pretty seriously. And where then do we draw the line on adventure games (Not that theyve had huge sales lately) And how about the Railroad/transport games - they seem to have a decent following among hardcore gamers.

My sense is that most of those PC owners either dont own any games, or own one or two. Basically most PC games are still sold to folks who buy several games a year, which is a rather different audience than a family whose total game purchases are "who wants to be a millionaire" and "Roller coaster Tycoon". Now the folks who buy 3 or 4 games a year may not be hard core gamers by your standard, they may be drawn to movie themed games, they may play RTS cloneware, etc. And they play GTA, Halo, etc in droves.


PC games in general have to face the issue that wargames face - how do you draw people into a niche hobby? Hardcore gamers are made, not born. What draws people in?

[lord of the mark]

Top ten games in week ending 3/27 , US, per NPD

1. Battlefield VietNam
2. Unreal Tourn 2004
3. CounterStrike (something)
4. Far Cry
5. Call of Duty
6. Splinter Cell
7. Flight Sim 2004
8. MVP Baseball 2004
9. Final Fantasy X1
10. Age of Mythology

well, not a game Im interested in, except maybe the flight sim. But are these casual games? Im not in position to say, as theyre mainly titles i dont follow, mainly FPS IIUC. This is not necessarily a typical week - no "The Sims" x packs this week. Its not the top ten list id like - no TBS, the only RTS is not "serious", etc. But its hard to say that those games are being kept out by a profusion of say, tycoon games.

[DrSpike]

Nice list, but it really isn't my point that there are more 'casual games' sold, although the Millionaires and Sims fans are fair examples of that increasing trend also. The point is that as a proportion casual gamers make up a higher percentage of gamers than they ever have, and we see this not just in what might be called casual games but in other games as well. If enough people are content to play an imbalanced game just because they are not skilled enough to see that it's imbalanced then the incentive that the relevant company faces to put the work in to produce a balanced game is obviously diminished. And that's just one example. This discussion has touched on the fact that some games can highlight shallow wants over substance, which again is in part a rational response on the part of companies to an increasing proportion of casual gamers.

Once again I'll reiterate this trend doesn't change the fact I believe gaming now is the best it's ever been. As I said it's merely something I see as holding back potential. Unfortunately since it's a rational response to a broadening consumer base I don't see the situation changing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Nice list, but it really isn't my point that there are more 'casual games' sold, although the Millionaires and Sims fans are fair examples of that increasing trend also. [/q]

Except as i said, that kind of game seems to have hit its peak at least 3 years ago.

The point is that as a proportion casual gamers make up a higher percentage of gamers than they ever have, and we see this not just in what might be called casual games but in other games as well. If enough people are content to play an imbalanced game just because they are not skilled enough to see that it's imbalanced then the incentive that the relevant company faces to put the work in to produce a balanced game is obviously diminished. And that's just one example.

I can't speak to the extent to which recent games are unbalanced, not having played them. But I can say that Civ2, for example, one of the classics of the "golden age" was massively imbalanced wrt to Infinite City Sprawl. And i will confess i didnt realize that till I heard about it online. Ultimately the best players of Civ2 had to either create artificial challenges, or stick to multiplayer. IIUC Civ3 was much better in that regard.



[q] This discussion has touched on the fact that some games can highlight shallow wants over substance, which again is in part a rational response on the part of companies to an increasing proportion of casual gamers.

Once again I'll reiterate this trend doesn't change the fact I believe gaming now is the best it's ever been. As I said it's merely something I see as holding back potential. Unfortunately since it's a rational response to a broadening consumer base I don't see the situation changing.

I fail to see evidence of such a broadening base, at least in the last 3 or 4 years, for PC games. PC Game Sales have been stagnant or growing slowly, far outpaced by console games. PC ownership has approached saturation point, at least in the US, and most new PC sales are additional PC's in a household, or replacements. AFAIK the proportion of PC games sold to people who buy multiple titles per year remains the same.

I think our discussion is too abstract at this point. To gain more insight I think we would have to examine the trends by genre. I dont think its really meaningful to compare say, a 2004 FPS to say, a 1999 TBS in terms of gameplay vs glitz tradeoffs. Id be more interested to see if depth has suffered in FPS, and in TBS, and in RTS, and for what tradeoff.I think that "shallow wants" may differ by genre as well - what a "casual" FPS player wants may be different from what a "casual" TBS player wants. Also the impact of consoles differs by genre - I suspect that in FPS consoles have drained off some of the casual players from the PC market altogether, whereas nothing of the kind has happened in TBS, obviously.

[DrSpike]

The scientist in me approves of your attempts at quantification. I would add again I am talking about the proportion of casual gamers in the stock of total PC gamers though, so some of your points are still beside the point. I will concede that the trend I believe exists has levelled off in recent years, as the saturation point in the PC market has been approached, but I would say that, although there might have been a drop in the rate of change, the direction is still upwards. I'm talking negative second derivatives not first.

Since your main objection is whether or not the trend has been continuing since 2001 then maybe we can agree it has slowed down but is still continuing at a lesser rate. After all even in a relatively saturated market some people are first time owners, like my gran a couple of years ago. I don't see any justification for believing in a peak in 2001 followed by a fall, though as I say I can see your arguements could quite easily be consistent with a fall in the rate of change.