Another Golden Age of Gaming? 150
An anonymous reader writes "Julian Murdoch over at Gamers With Jobs thinks that this is the best time ever to be a gamer. In his conversation with a (one suspects hypothetical) kid in a library, he engages in a bit of a rant on the topic: 'He's me when I was 16. Everything sucked. But I'm glad I talked to him, because it turns out I needed to hear myself say it all. For all of my daily kvetching, this is the best time ever to be a gamer, because the games are good. We can bitch all we want about console wars, prices, fanboyitis, and those games which do, in fact, suck. But at the end of the day, there are more different games out there than ever before, from the oh-so-pretty Oblivion to Guitar Hero to Dwarf Fortress. From Magic: the Gathering to Pokemon (laugh all you want, it's a good game). From Heroscape to Warhammer 40k.'
So what do you think? In the midst of all the negative campaigning in the console wars, is this another golden age of gaming?"
Golden Age? Hah (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is now the cost of making mass market games is so prohibitively expensive that few companies are willing to take a risk and do something different.
Don't get me wrong. There are some good games out now but calling it a Golden Age is a bit much in my opinion.
I'll take what he's smoking (Score:5, Insightful)
By definition, we can't have a Golden Age of Gaming again, any more than we can have a Golden Age of movies. The early days of when gaming hit its stride are long gone. Yes, we fondly remember when the Wizards and Gurus sat down at their keyboards and worked their black magic to do the impossible. It seemed like the sky was the limit, and new concepts for games were coming out every other day. There were pushes into story-driven games, first person perspective games, simulation games, action games, puzzle games, etc. Each magazine or software catalog that came in the mail delivered new surprises and wonders. It was all very new and VERY exciting!
Where we're at today is not a Golden Age. All the basic, conceptual groundwork has been laid. So we instead focus on providing the most immersive experience possible. Many of these games can be fun in their own right, but they simply don't compare to the excitement of seeing Duke Nukem' for the first time, or coaxing Wing Commander to run on your PC. It's nothing like the awe at playing Tetris on a portable system for the first time, or making Mario fly through the clouds on a cape. Those were totally, completely, and unabashingly wonderous things for a wonderous time.
I think Nintendo manages to capture some of that with the Nintendo DS. However, gaming will never be virgin territory again. That's just the way it is.
The Golden Age or the Revolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I mean by that is there are no new genre defining games coming out anymore. Maybe it's because we've reached hardware & software limitations or maybe it's because no one is willing to risk it with so many popularized genres out there to make a buck off of.
This is true and I applaud games like Guitar Hero or even Um Jammer Lammy
One would think (or hope) that with internet connections for consoles and the MMORPG world conquered by World of Warcraft that we would be seeing a lot of innovation. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to see less and less innovation and a whole lot more 'safety' games. Indeed, this is a golden age
Re:I'll take what he's smoking (Score:4, Insightful)
That was said in the 70's about computer science,
and in the 60's about artifical intelligence,
and in the 19th century about physics.
In other words, I doubt it.
Doubt it (Score:3, Insightful)
The wii and ds may provide a mini-renaissance, but that's about it.
Sorry, gaming is all but dead to real gamers. (Score:1, Insightful)
I haven't been interested in a new game for quite some time, because it's all the same garbage. I'd rather go back and play old NES or DOS games, back when gaming was actually fresh and exciting. What's worse is that the so-called "gamers" today turn their noses up at the old games because the graphics "suck".
Kids today. Get off my lawn with your Halo crapfest. DOOM is far superior than that graphically overblown, poor excuse for a FPS.
Oooh, trollish! Anonymous powers: activate!
Pointless (Score:4, Insightful)
Looking back, things always seem better because you tend to remember the good bits more than the mediocre. There are some really great games out there. Sure, there are lots of sequels and generic FPSs, but you don't have to play them.
The golden age.. (Score:4, Insightful)
And surely 'twas made all the sweeter when it became easy to find ye massive torrents with all of each system's entire calalogue o' ROMs in a single RARrrr, matey!
MMORPG's definitely not (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Golden Age? Hah (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Golden Age? Hah (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly the problem with games today. Everyone is playing it safe now...it's Hollywood. Nobody wants to take risks or just make fun and challenging games anymore. There are FAR fewer good games these days. Don't let pretty graphics and sound fool you.
I can't honestly believe that anyone that has been gaming since the 80s can say that this is another golden age and keep a straight face...
Re:You're emphasizing on the etymology of the word (Score:3, Insightful)
Your interpretation of "Golden Age" leaves something to be desired. Again from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
It goes on to give several examples that are consistent with this definition, including a Golden Age of Videogames.
This is backed by Princeton's WordNet [princeton.edu]:
The problem with your definition is that any period with an abundance of a technology or art would be the "Golden Age" of that subject. Which would mean that the "Golden Age" of Science Fiction was the 80's and 90's, with a new "Golden Age" appearing today. This is blatently incorrect. The Golden Age of Science Fiction [wikipedia.org] was a period between the 40's and 50's when the concepts regularly used in today's SciFi were developed.
The term you're looking for is probably "Renaissance". As in, we are experiencing a rebirth of fun Videogames in abundance. Thus, a "Videogame Renaissance".
Re:For boardgaming, maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
First is digital distribution will become the prominent way of getting games out. Everyone will get used to it, it'll cut out a lot of the middlemen producers, it's a win/win.
Second, as graphics begin to plateau, the selection of available toolsets and engines will start to catch up and mature, they'll become easier to use, the cost of those tools will drop.
Things have always functioned like this on a small scale in the PC world with shareware and the like, but as the size and complexity of games increased so quickly, it was hard for smaller developers to keep up, not to mention that bandwidth restrictions made it hard for gamers to download large games. But the bandwidth issue is less of a problem now, and the modding scene has provided people with low cost tools for making games for the PC. Console manufacturers are starting to take notice of this, and Microsoft has already begun to work the community of smaller developers into Xbox Live. Nintendo has mentioned similar things for the Wii. I'd expect it to become a bigger part of console gaming with the next next-gen.
How insightful.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Julian Murdoch thinks that this is the best time ever to be a gamer
Well of course it is, as time goes by, more and more games are created, more and more consoles are created, more and more emulators are developped, and nothing disappears.
Being a gamer in 2020 > being a gamer in 2010 > being a gamer in 2005 > being a gamer in 2000 > being a gamer in 1995 > being a gamer in 1985 > being a gamer in 1975 > being a gamer in 1930.
Re:Golden Age? Hah (Score:3, Insightful)
I can go out and buy a game that has better mini-games than anything that was made in the 80's. An easy, if over-used example would be Geometry Wars, which was just a small part of Project Gotham Racing 2.
The on-line gaming space is absolutely fantastic now. Not only are there millions of opportunities for you to get a game going, but the games actually WORK. Just last night I was playing Call of Duty 2 on my Xbox 360. Rooms would fill up with 8 people in just about 1 minute. The lag was imperceptible, the automatic matchmaking meant that the competition was good- AND we could all chat while playing!
In the 1980's I couldn't even dream that I would be able to TALK to a player who was thousands of miles away, as we planned our attack on 4 opposing human players in a fairly realistic 3d world. And while I was crouched, protecting our radio (headquarters) I could tell where the enemy was using my surround sound system. And when the enemy finally made it to the door, my team-mate sniper could tell me "move to the left, I have a clear shot".
Maybe this isn't for you. Maybe you would rather play a game by yourself, pushing colored blocks around while sub-midi quality music played repetitively through your speakers.
I do remember multi-player in the 80's it was a lot of fun. My friends and I would sit around a computer and take turns playing a game. (Whoever lost the last city in Missle Command would get pummeled by the rest of us.) It was great fun. Now I have the option of Internet gaming, OR we can still gather around one box and play. (I do both)
As someone who has been gaming consistently for 30 years (sadly...yes, for 30 years consistently and nearly constantly) it is my opinion that games have never been better.
Re:Golden Age? Hah (Score:2, Insightful)
The game publishing industry is driven mostly by the same people who drive the rest of the entertainment industry (after all, most game publishers are owned by mega-media corporations). This means that the game publishing industry will be stodgily uncomfortable with risk. Risk to these people is anything that hasn't made money before; ergo, you will see lots of sequels (most crappy, the rare one occasionally good), lots of games based on other properties that have made money. That's just the way media corporations function.
I think it matters a lot on where you are standing (Score:4, Insightful)
For my kids, though, holy cow! For $50 I got a flash cart that can play almost 30 years worth of console games on my son's GBA. He has a library of over a hundred games, and they are all fun for him, no "Yo' Noid" crap. In less than 2 months, my daughter will be waving a contol around like a tennis raquett, or turning like a steering wheel, just like I did with my Atari 2600 joysticks and paddles. But hers will actually control the game! Would you just kill for that back in our "Golden Age" of the 70's and 80's and early 90's?
And yesterday, my youngest asked my daughter a question about ninja's. Her response: "Let's ask the computer." In 2 or 3 minutes, he had color pictures printed and hanging on his door and his question was answered. I remember when Scotty asked the computer questions, now my kids do it
So I think that todays kid's "Golden Age" kicks ass, just like ours did.
Re:Golden Age? Hah (Score:4, Insightful)
I play just as many new games as I did 20 years ago. I appreciate the advances that have been made over the years. You have to realize that even though I obviously don't consider this the best time in gaming, it's certainly not the worst either. From your response it seems that you think I have to love one or the other, but not both.
I just don't feel that the games of today live up to the peak that was hit in the early to mid 90's. Maybe it's nostalgia, but maybe it's because I think games back then had more character.
I'd hardly classify the 80s and 90s and "pushing colored blocks around while sub-midi quality music played repetitively through your speakers".
Maybe I have a greater appreciation for art style than I do for 3D modeling and texturing.
Anyways, I completely respect your views and I'm glad you responded.