Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I like nostalgia!

Not quite an Oldhammerer myself, but I can really see the temptation!

On the subject of video game nostalgia, I enjoy http://www.project1999.com/ , which is a recreation of the ground breaking Everquest MMO covering the 1999-2001 era.

 Melissia wrote:
I'm not really going anywhere with this, aside from bitterly complaining about other peoples' nostalgia getting in the way of them enjoying a good game.

So you're complaining that some people don't like the same games you do? Oh the inhumanity, Oh the indignity!

From what I understand, most computer/video games need to have a degree of nostalgic gameplay in them, to connect with either past series games or similar gameplay styles.

However, it's far from ruined. I'd actually point out that underneath games like Battlegrounds and fallout 4, you've got games like No Man's Sky, and Angels Fall first, Games that are almost entirely based on the old styles, but are groundbreaking.

I'd also point out that nostalgia is the reason a lot of non-video games items, like clothing, movies and so on bite the dust. It's a generalisation. No need to be bitter about it.

Games are often ok but in the case of starcraft 2 I'd say that game needs some change for the better. The hardcore fans of starcraft are ruining it I think. How many RTS games have so much base-building and dealing with resources? It should be the tactics involved and sure resources are a thing but should be put on the backburner as far as the tactics are concerned. All I need to know is my dudes are getting resources rather than purchases builders and gatherers to do this crap. Seriously starcraft 2 has designs created in the 90's of strategy gaming.

There are newer RTS games like company of heroes 2 and wargame: red dragon.

Oh and as a totally odd sorta contradictory behavior to my statement I think i'll play starcraft 2 with a friend . We might play something else though.

--------

As far as warhammer fantasy goes (if we're talking nostalgia ruining games) I'd prefer it over 'Age of Sigmar' any day. Perhaps that's just because I liked it so when it died and I saw what was new I saw it cater to painters, 40k players and that's about it.

I think it can be said either end can ruin the game and usually it's either hardcore gamers ruining things for casual fans and casuals ruining things for hardcore players. It's been happening for a while now.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Seriously starcraft 2 has designs created in the 90's of strategy gaming.

Which some people, including me, enjoy. Its very easy to do badly (which is why base building RTS games are a rarity today). Starcraft 2 is the only RTS game that I play these days and that is largely due to its base building.

All games have core mechanics that were created in the 80s and 90s (sometimes even the 70s) Where would CoD XXII be without Castle Wolfenstein?

Well thing is the base building or bases weren't so bad. However gatherers are not needed. Most games use gathering points of interest or simplify the resource mechanic as it should be. Dawn of war 2 had one stupidly hard to kill building as your HQ and that wasn't that good.

Most other RTS's also have things such as squads. Then there's the whole ridiculous click a million times to win. That isn't a strategy so much as a test to see who suffers carpal tunnel first. I mean if you played any game with formations like Total War they probably have a 'loose formation' that could set your guys spaced apart in a hurry. Why do I need to click a million times to do this? It's not needed. It doesn't make you a better tactician. It should be easy like somebody saying 'Hey guys spread out and die less!' Seriously AoE would be infinitely easier to handle if that was a thing.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
It doesn't make you a better tactician.

No RTS will make you a better tactician

Starcraft is largely about micro; that's why there are individual units and why there are workers. Its also why it is a massive E sport. Lots of people evidently like that kind of game.

I worked at Sony Computer Entertainment for 17 years, at first in development, later in marketing, and went through six generations of consoles; PS1, PS2, PSP, PS3, PS Vita and start of PS4.

From my experience, the thing about video games is that it's really hard to develop significant new ideas, and most new generations of games are the recreation of the previous version with better graphics and a new story. If it's a racing game, you might get supposedly better AI and more tracks.

That's why story based games like Tomb Raider, Uncharted or Phoenix Wright just keep going and going. There are a couple of refinements or changes in each new version, but the main change is the story and the graphics.

It also explains the popularity with developers of online multi-player modes. The other human players supply the variability and intelligence that a game can't.

It's actually really rare to be able to invent a completely new kind of game. Arguably, Journey (That Game Company, PS3, 2012) was the last really new idea and it's an idea that can't even be successfully repeated, as you see from the reviews of the PS4 version.

I've been playing video games since before a lot of you were born. I've been through periods of greater and lesser enthusiasm. At the moment I'm at a low point, and hardly touch my consoles (my daughter broke my DS Lite, which doesn't help.) It's not nostalgia preventing me from enjoying new games so much as the cyclical realisation that there hardly ever are any new games. I've played enough games for a while, and need to do something else.

In some way this is like reading novels. There's an old theory that there are only 12 distinct plots, and all novels are a variation on them. IDK if it's true, but there are times I've overdosed on zombie novels, or military SF< and had to move well away from a genre and tackle something completely different.

I blame Final Fantasy VII.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
It should be easy like somebody saying 'Hey guys spread out and die less!' Seriously AoE would be infinitely easier to handle if that was a thing.

I'm pretty sure AoE2 and AoE3 both have that. Loose formation that is.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I worked at Sony Computer Entertainment for 17 years, at first in development, later in marketing, and went through six generations of consoles; PS1, PS2, PSP, PS3, PS Vita and start of PS4.

From my experience, the thing about video games is that it's really hard to develop significant new ideas, and most new generations of games are the recreation of the previous version with better graphics and a new story. If it's a racing game, you might get supposedly better AI and more tracks.

That's why story based games like Tomb Raider, Uncharted or Phoenix Wright just keep going and going. There are a couple of refinements or changes in each new version, but the main change is the story and the graphics.

It also explains the popularity with developers of online multi-player modes. The other human players supply the variability and intelligence that a game can't.

It's actually really rare to be able to invent a completely new kind of game. Arguably, Journey (That Game Company, PS3, 2012) was the last really new idea and it's an idea that can't even be successfully repeated, as you see from the reviews of the PS4 version.

I've been playing video games since before a lot of you were born. I've been through periods of greater and lesser enthusiasm. At the moment I'm at a low point, and hardly touch my consoles (my daughter broke my DS Lite, which doesn't help.) It's not nostalgia preventing me from enjoying new games so much as the cyclical realisation that there hardly ever are any new games. I've played enough games for a while, and need to do something else.

In some way this is like reading novels. There's an old theory that there are only 12 distinct plots, and all novels are a variation on them. IDK if it's true, but there are times I've overdosed on zombie novels, or military SF< and had to move well away from a genre and tackle something completely different.

This. You can't constantly come up with new ideas, trying to do something truly different that doesn't have any reference or connection to anything else is damn near impossible.

That being said, no, videogames nowadays don't suck. There are some truly great games out there, and some truly piss poor games. Developers/publishers getting lazy and rehashing or releasing bugged games is why SOME video games suck nowadays (looking at you, Ubisoft).

Is every game a grand slam the way Super Mario Bros. or Halo were? No, but expecting them to be is dishonest and unfair. I don't expect games to blow me away every time. If I have fun, great, if not, I toss it and move on. If it does truly blow me away, then I spend lots of time with it and rave about it to all my friends.

I think your jaded view is making you miss out on a lot of fun being had by other players.

Ha, that original subject title is very distracting from what the OP said.

The issue is more that a reviewer would say "It is like System Shock 2 but not as good..." with some accompanying statements like "they don't build them like they used to" or "get off my lawn!". That the prior knowledge of games should not detract from the one at hand.

I figure it is easier than ever for an independent to publish into what is a mainstream form of entertainment.
There is not much out there to filter out the "garbage" titles never mind heavy DRM, "crippleware", insane DLC's and the silly "shovelware".
A larger proportion of video games "suck" but I would think the new "gems" should still outnumber the past accomplishments.

It is hard to un-remember prior games I have played, just like movies, music or books.
Any title that is too similar to a prior automatically begins to "suck" because it has not sufficiently brought enough new things to the table to entertain me.
The good thing is: new players do not care, it is new to them and seems awesome and innovative.

It is a mixed feeling explaining to my kid that this "awesome new song" that is like a new generation theme is a cover song to something that has had been covered 2 other times since some 20 years ago. It is HARD to amuse the old folks who have "been there, done that, but different".

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Long standing franchises sticking to old formulas are still consumed and enjoyed by their audiences.

Some more than others. The various CoD cash cows are the most obvious example as to why releasing essentially the same game each year isn't a great idea.

Why? Those games have/had large audiences that enjoy them. I mean they're kind of in decline now but they had a very good run. This statement seems to be saying that we shouldn't release brainless summer blockbuster flicks any more. It's harmless popcorn entrainment that peopled enjoyed and made the studios money.

Other cash cows are still going strong. Folks seem content on repurchasing basically the same Pokemon game at pretty regular intervals. Heck it's even still popular with the kids, and other than some innovations every 3-4 cycles it's still the same basic game.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Demonstrate a review of a game how you feel it should be done: you write well.

I'd be interested in reading Melissia Game Reviews.

The only distinctly review-like writing I can remember making was where I mildly defended Duke Nukem Forever a while back. Granted, I claim no ability to write good reviews, myself, but that doesn't mean I can't spot a bad one

 Talizvar wrote:
The issue is more that a reviewer would say "It is like System Shock 2 but not as good..." with some accompanying statements like "they don't build them like they used to" or "get off my lawn!". That the prior knowledge of games should not detract from the one at hand.

Basically.

A lot of games are perfectly good or at least decent games, but they're "tainted by association"-- unfairly so. Many games do draw from older games, but the problem is when they do so many people claim they're ripping off the older game, or they're not as good because they're not drawing enough from the older game, because OH MY GOD THAT OLDER GAME WAS SO GOOD, GUYS!!!

It's a really bad habit people seem to get in to... I prefer it when the reviewer at least attempts to judge a game on its own merits, without pining over "the good old days". Because I actually agree, we're in a fething awesome time for gaming. Especially for small game developer companies.

 Melissia wrote:
[

 Talizvar wrote:
The issue is more that a reviewer would say "It is like System Shock 2 but not as good..." with some accompanying statements like "they don't build them like they used to" or "get off my lawn!". That the prior knowledge of games should not detract from the one at hand.

Basically.

A lot of games are perfectly good or at least decent games, but they're "tainted by association"-- unfairly so. Many games do draw from older games, but the problem is when they do so many people claim they're ripping off the older game, or they're not as good because they're not drawing enough from the older game, because OH MY GOD THAT OLDER GAME WAS SO GOOD, GUYS!!!

It's a really bad habit people seem to get in to... I prefer it when the reviewer at least attempts to judge a game on its own merits, without pining over "the good old days". Because I actually agree, we're in a fething awesome time for gaming. Especially for small game developer companies.

Then really, you're SOL. Trying to get people to remove their "nostalgia bias" is nigh impossible. An easier fix would be to not listen to reviewers or just consider all sources. As long as Legend of Zelda games keep getting made, they'll keep getting compared to Ocarina of Time, Link to the Past, and Wind Waker.

Have you any examples of recent reviews by reviewers (or even not so recent) to cite?
I personal dont even bother with reviews anymore be it from "popular" reviewers or main websites. I find friends/colleagues/sites such as gaming forums to be much more helpful and review worthy.
Why? Because said opinions arent out to make a buck/garner publisher support/stroke their own sad egos or bs anyone.

 Chongara wrote:

Why? Those games have/had large audiences that enjoy them.

A large audience is never a particularly good metric to measure quality. MacDonalds is a perfect example of this, or the Fast and Furious films or countless other examples in all kinds of fields.

CoD games are now nearly the definition of a mindlessly generic but extremely expensive game.

 Ratius wrote:
Have you any examples of recent reviews by reviewers (or even not so recent) to cite?
I personal dont even bother with reviews anymore be it from "popular" reviewers or main websites. I find friends/colleagues/sites such as gaming forums to be much more helpful and review worthy.
Why? Because said opinions arent out to make a buck/garner publisher support/stroke their own sad egos or bs anyone.

I agree, skip the reviews, as we've learned it's just more paid advertisement.

I just wait a few days after any release I'm interested in, then I watch the youtube videos so I can decide if it's my kind of game. My friends have horrible tastes, they think firefly is a good show, so I wouldn't take their word on a game

sirlynchmob wrote:

I agree, skip the reviews, as we've learned it's just more paid advertisement.

Not necessarily, reviews from certain sources are usually worth at least considering. RPS seems pretty decent and I haven't violently disagreed with any of their reviews.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

Why? Those games have/had large audiences that enjoy them.

A large audience is never a particularly good metric to measure quality. MacDonalds is a perfect example of this, or the Fast and Furious films or countless other examples in all kinds of fields.

CoD games are now nearly the definition of a mindlessly generic but extremely expensive game.

]

What's wrong with having McDs, Fast & Furious or Call of Duty available for people who like those sorts of things? It's one thing to say that these things aren't particularly deep, subversive or thought-provoking. It's another to say having them regularly available is a "Bad Idea".

I'm not a Call of Duty fan by any stretch but it's not like if they didn't exist the money would going to some kind of artful revolution in games. It'd probably be going into games about Chainsawing zombies, or being an assassins with superpowers, or whatever else the next-in-line trend is.

 Chongara wrote:

What's wrong with having McDs, Fast & Furious or Call of Duty available for people who like those sorts of things?

Nothing in itself but they are hardly examples of high quality, generally quite the reverse. This is why I used them as my bad example.

What do you base "high quality" on? CoD has "high quality" movie cinematic gameplay, McDonals has high quality fast food ingredients-wise and FF has high quality car chases and TnA. Batman vs. Superman has high quality visuals and audio, but absolute trash quality script and pacing.

Quality cannot be objectively measured for entertainment media as, as stated before, it's subject to personal opinion and where you see quality in.

 Sigvatr wrote:
What do you base "high quality" on? CoD has "high quality" movie cinematic gameplay.

Yet terrible repetitive mechanics.

It is possible to gauge quality in entertainments, not quantitatively of course but its very difficult to gauge the quality of anything quantitatively. There will always be a degree of subjectivity but meh.

Which is the better film, Aliens or Alien 3. The better burger, MacDonalds or Five guys? The better game, Daikatana or Doom?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
What do you base "high quality" on? CoD has "high quality" movie cinematic gameplay.

Yet terrible repetitive mechanics.

It is possible to gauge quality in entertainments, not quantitatively of course but its very difficult to gauge the quality of anything quantitatively. There will always be a degree of subjectivity but meh.

Which is the better film, Aliens or Alien 3. The better burger, MacDonalds or Five guys? The better game, Daikatana or Doom?

You can quantify it though.
source: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Alien#tab=summary

world wide box office:
alien: $203,630,630
aliens: $183,316,455
aliens 3: $155,933,485
AvP: $172,543,519
promethius: $399,005,706

AvP was a horrible movie, and the box office reflected it. I would say aliens was better than alien, it's just that more people world wide saw it differently.

the better the quality, the more it makes. we can look at the last quarters profits for mcD's and 5 guys, and sales for doom & daikatana. Or just track the history of games that can be played online, # of players, time played, etc.

 Lotet wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
It should be easy like somebody saying 'Hey guys spread out and die less!' Seriously AoE would be infinitely easier to handle if that was a thing.

I'm pretty sure AoE2 and AoE3 both have that. Loose formation that is.

Oh I didn't mean 'Age of Empires' I meant 'Area of Effect' type attacks. Also I was referring to starcraft 1 and 2's lack of a loose formation.

sirlynchmob wrote:


the better the quality, the more it makes.

Yeah...no. That has been proven wrong a long time ago.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Lotet wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
It should be easy like somebody saying 'Hey guys spread out and die less!' Seriously AoE would be infinitely easier to handle if that was a thing.

I'm pretty sure AoE2 and AoE3 both have that. Loose formation that is.

Oh I didn't mean 'Age of Empires' I meant 'Area of Effect' type attacks. Also I was referring to starcraft 1 and 2's lack of a loose formation.

I am quite sure he understood what you meant, and he replied accordigly.

sirlynchmob wrote:

You can quantify it though.

You can't track anything through simple popularity as popularity is so reliant on social and economic factors that are completely divorced from the actual product. Availability, cost, advertising, fashion.......

Given that Prometheus apparently made twice as much money as Aliens that must mean that its twice as good, right?

Video games don't suck at all. The past year I have spent more time playing than I did in the decade previously.

I absolutely smashed the gak out of games like Ocarina of Time and Diablo back in the 90s, but I bet I have spent even longer on Fallout 4, Pillars of Eternity, Witcher 3, Civilization AE, Starcraft 2, and recently, about 100 hours on Xcom 2.

Honestly the games indursty seems to be better than ever, back in the day I would maybe get 2 or 3 wesome games a year, now I get about 10, Im literally spoiled for choice.

Ive even got games on my hard drive I haven't had the chance to start yet, Divinity Original Sin hasnt been clicked months after installation cos I havent finished with everything else.

So I don't buy the original premise. Nostalgia is fine, but it doesn't inhibit my enjoyment of all the new games, or negatively impact the current glut of games. "The Community" is just full of people that whinge too much, but meanwhile, I'm having a ball.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

You can quantify it though.

You can't track anything through simple popularity as popularity is so reliant on social and economic factors that are completely divorced from the actual product. Availability, cost, advertising, fashion.......

Given that Prometheus apparently made twice as much money as Aliens that must mean that its twice as good, right?

As a quick reference, yes it's twice as good.

But that is just one reference point, we can refine the parameters, and nuke the heck out of it.

and you can track anything through popularity, let's add in rotten tomatoes, aliens-98%, Prometheus, 73%. So aliens is 25% better than Prometheus. Then we could average out the ratings the critics gave them, see which is more streamed on netflixs, most downloaded on torrents, adjust the box office sales for inflation, etc and we can average out the results and quantify which movie is better.

We could then refine the data and make lists, best movies by country, best by state, best by city, etc
When it comes to rating entertainment, It's all about the popularity and we can rank anything with it.

Well see it with superman vs batman, which is arguably a bad movie and as such we'll expect to see lower box office, lower tomatoes rating, less streamed, etc closest comparable movie is 'avengers, age of ultron' opening weekend, $191,271,109 (USA) (1 May 2015) (75% RT)
BVS: $166,007,347 (USA) (25 March 2016) (29% RT)

Clearly avengers is the better movie. But when you get down to individual opinion, there's always someone to say 'that movie sucks' and it doesn't mean he's nostalgic for some by gone movie, it doesn't mean he doesn't appreciate a good movie, it just means he didn't like it. and when he makes his top 10 list of movies, then that is the only list that really matters to him.