Didn't read the article in full, but it sounds rather biased and (sorry) stupid in my opinion. For example, according to the writer, there are no strategy or RTS games anymore, which is not true. The next thing i've noticed is that in his list of "classic games", you'll find strategy and simulation titles exclusively. It's quite obvious that the writer doesn't like, for example, action or sports titles very much.

There are quite a few things to consider, i think.

- The Nostalgia Factor: if you've loved a game as a child or young adult, you'll probably love it for live, even though you wouldn't actually play it today. I've experienced this effect many times myself while playing old games on emulators, and have seen the same effect with a lot of my friends. In my case, i love a lot of C-64 games, because of the great SID music, and other factors. But when playing these games now, i usually notice quite soon that they suck, if i'm honest to myself. The graphics are abysmal, gameplay is rudimentary, you have a high frustration factor and/or steep learning curve, and so on. Like i wrote in another thread, it's like comparing your first sexual encounter(s), or smoking your first reefer with today's experiences. It's still nice and all, but it won't be the same.

- Target Group: "old" games were made for what we would now call "Hardcore Gamers". The simple reason was that no other group of people would play computer games. If i think back to the late 80's or early 90's, i remember getting a lot of funny looks when people noticed i was "addicted" to playing computer games. Today, playing computer games is usually much more accepted by the society. This also means the number of people playing computer games has increased dramatically, so the devs have to cater to a much larger group of people. This fact inevitably leads to "easier" games, because the group of "Hardcore Gamers" that are willing and capable of understanding complicated gaming rules, or are willing to try the same levels a hundred times until they really master a game, is getting smaller and smaller.

- Marketing: this is a sub-point of the above one, really. Because the potential target group for a game is much larger than, let's say, 15 years ago, the games are very different. You'll have a lot of tie-ins to popular movies, or a lot of kiddie games, for example. Developing a game is no longer a 5-man-show, you'll need hundreds of well-trained specialists to create a game today. The investment is a huge one, and the risk of losing everything is very high. The situation is comparable to movies, i think. The really _good_ movies, acclaimed by critics and connoisseurs, don't make much money. It's the high-value, popcorn stuff that makes people rich.

- Number of Games: the number of new computer games being released has increased dramatically, too. In the "good old days", you had only a handful of interesting games per year. Now, there's hundreds and hundres of releases, which doesn't do much for quality, of course. Again, the sitaution can be compared to the one in movies. Oh, and it's quite logical that most possible gaming concepts have been implemented by now, too. We won't get many more "revolutionary" titles, like the first RTS or the first FPS, in the future. It's evolution now, not revolution.

I think all these "old games rule, new games suck"-people are silly, really. They are set in their ways, and not able to accept new experiences. I'm happy that i still find joy in gaming, and occasionally discover new and interesting concepts by getting over my dislike for certain things. One example are Bemani games. I never thought i would play such a "silly, hopping-around game" - until i've bought a dance mat, and tried out Stepmania on the Xbox. After a few hours of self-shame, i was hooked. It's simply fun to play, especially with good friends, or your nieces or whatever kids you have around.

There are very, very good modern "normal" games, too. You'll have to wade through a lot of sh*t to find them, but it usually is worth the effort. Two examples of modern games i really love, and which weren't possible to create in the "old days", are S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Company of Heroes. Of course, they did not revolutionize their respective genres, but they were fun to play.

I could go on and on about that topic, but that should be enough for now. (;

PS: KAN, i wonder what you want to communicate with that "signature" of yours. You are aware that having sex with animals is considered rather... unusual in most cultures, aren't you?

I think it means "Welcome all you fucking sheep", or something like that.

With regards to the article, the authors love of deep simulations is valid but his guesses as to why they're not produced anymore are way off. Basically, how many deep military sims have been produced and/or released by big companies since 9/11? None, that's how many. It's just something that game devs and publishers don't want to be associated with anymore, they get enough stick from the Jack Thompson-alikes of this world for simulated sex and street volience. Also, Microprose don't exist as they used to and E.A. dropped the Janes license many moons ago.

Games like Shadow President were not big sellers even back then - falling prey to lighter toned spoofs and piracy at the same time, yet still there are modern versions of that game even now. Uplink also fits the bill too.

The writer's assumptions that some of those games were half decent are also pretty skewed. Megafortess was a buggy piece of shit and F-19 was a pale shadow of its original STEALTH C64 parent.

He's also a bit of a cock for direct-linking people to piracy abandonware.

How does he expect companies to make more of the games he loves so much when they'll have no idea of the kind of revenue they could create? At the very least he could have directed readers to legitimate suppliers.

He even links to an evil abandonware site - he should have known better!

leileilol wrote:

He even links to an evil abandonware site - he should have known better!

Yeah, and that is illegal to do here so I know where you are getting with that. And I am not going to say anything further in that direction.

ADDiCT wrote:

Today, playing computer games is usually much more accepted by the society. This also means the number of people playing computer games has increased dramatically, so the devs have to cater to a much larger group of people. This fact inevitably leads to "easier" games,

I think "watered down" is more accurate word, as well as "recycling the same formula". This is probably most felt in action genre. F.E.A.R and Crysis may have raised the bar for graphics, but at the very core, they're just another shooter. Half-Life 2 is a very good shooter, but it is still another shooter nonetheless. Of course there are ocassionally rare gems like Deus Ex, Rainbow Six, or Bioshock, but there ain't too many.

Now take a look at Microprose's Sword of the Samurai, for instance; is it action game? Strategy game? Role-playing game? It doesn't matter; it is still an exciting game where you play the action sequences not just for the sake of playing action sequences, but as part of bigger picture instead. I'd love to see such thing in modern action games. Alas, they don't make such games anymore today. Probably because game publishers are staying with "tried-and-true" formula of 3D shooter.

And how about RTS? Every RTS today is basically Command & Conquer with better graphic and/or AI. SSI's Stronghold and Gremlin's Fragile Allegience are RTSs too --with unique and addicting gameplay. However, it seems most publishers today are not interested to even create an upgraded version of Stronghold. Probably because C&C formula is considered "safer" from business perspective.

ADDiCT wrote:

Oh, and it's quite logical that most possible gaming concepts have been implemented by now, too.

I beg to differ; I think some gaming concepts are being abandoned in favor of certain "tried-and-true" concepts. Most action games today are based on the concept of Quake while abadoning the concept of Sword of the Samurai or Their Finest Hour (both allow you doing action as part of bigger picture). Most RTS games today are based on the concept of Command & Conquer while abandoning the concepts of Stronghold.

There are indeed more game titles today, but gameplay has been more generic compared to the past.

ADDiCT wrote:

I think all these "old games rule, new games suck"-people are silly, really. They are set in their ways, and not able to accept new experiences.

I cannot speak for the writer, but I'm actually able to enjoy titles like Doom 3. Problem is: after playing Doom 3, I don't see any compelling reason to play, let say, Crysis, because it's basically the same first person shooter all over again.

So from my own perspective, new games don't necessarily suck; they're still enjoyable nonetheless, but they are more generic and watered down. I play old games because they give me things I cannot get from new games, and frankly, I think it's also the reason why people using DOSBOX and buying old games on eBay. Seriously, how many of you folks are using DOSBOX for WordStar or FoxBase compared to those who're using it for games?

So yes, the writer is exagerrating, and I think he's wrong about RPG (modern RPGs like KOTOR and Morrowind have excellent gameplay and storyline), but I believe he's got a point.

WolverineDK wrote:

Yeah, and that is illegal to do here so I know where you are getting with that. And I am not going to say anything further in that direction.

😒 Oh please. He doesn't come here and put links to abandonware site on this forum; he merely puts them on his own site, at his own risk. Let's not be too uptight about it.

As the author, let me say first, thanks for reading.

My list is in no way comprehensive, but I do note at the bottom that I intentionally left out certain categories of games (i.e. sports, certain sims, some RTS) because there have been well-done successors. I loved a lot of the early Tony LaRussa Baseball and Colin McRae Rally games, and of course there are newer versions of these types of things almost every year. No point in bitching about what is already available. My main complaint is not that games today blow (that was mainly tongue-in-cheek), but that there is, in some ways, much less diversity in terms of types of PC games.

I have to confess I am not sure where I said there are no RTS or strategy games anymore. There are certain RTS or strategy games, but they generally trend toward the arcade as opposed to realism. For instance World in Conflict takes a stab at being an 80-era RTS, but the units don't behave much like actual soldiers and armored cavalry. Real troops lose discipline and may eventually break under withering crossfires, long before they are actually killed off -- this is something Microsoft's old Close Combat line of games modelled very well, whatever their other shortcomings. But the morale factor (and the possibility for the troops to disobey their movement or firing orders) is singularly missing from almost every contemporary RTS. I enjoy some of today's RTSes, like say C&C Red Alert 3, but I would also enjoy an RTS with realistic unit morale and limitations as well.

Dh4rm4, regarding Shadow President, I did check out SuperPower 2 and Supreme Commander 2010, both of which had some promising elements but were ultimately disappointing due to bugs and limitations in the game design. Geo-Political Simulator looks vaguely interesting but I haven't tried it yet, so there may yet be a decent Shadow President successor. I realise it was not a big seller, but it was relatively unique for its time, being preceded by the defunct Balance of Power series.

Addict makes some very good points and in the main I agree with them, the developer and consumer landscapes are far different now, and games are rarely small efforts. On the other hand, there are a few small-ish developers like Paradox Interactive which consistently crank out a small number of games (Paradox tends to focus on terrific historical strategy titles), so it's possible for a smaller development house to live comfortably in the niche areas where the "hardcore" gamers live. Games that have niche appeal by definition don't need a massive marketing blitz and teams of 50 developers working on artwork and textures alone. The staff gets scaled to the effort and expected sales. Not every launch is going to be HALO 3, nor should it be; but it's human nature to want to be the rock star versus the symphony cellist.

I have to differ with the "old dog can't learn new tricks" jibe, though. I enjoyed DDR and Rock Band as much as the next guy. Those games are fun. But for me, as fun as they are, they will never be half as much fun as a good flight sim. I like flying real planes and fake planes.. playing fake guitars is fun but doesn't really allow me to exercise a current skill I can use in real life. C'est la vie.

Which is, incidentally, part of why I liked Megafortress. It may well have been a "buggy piece of shit", as you call it, but it had the advantage of being unique, a (then) modern-day bomber simulator, using all of the crew positions. It was rare then, and positively nonexistent now.

As far as the abandonware sites goes... I linked the sites that had the best descriptions/screenshots, as I wasn't going to spend a page and a half on my own to describe each game and plunk in dozens of screenshots. Probably would have been a good idea to not link the ones that actually had the D/L links in the article, though.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Mech Brigade was the only one that linked to a site with a D/L, I've changed that in the post and linked elsewhere.

I have to say that I find the extreme, blind fanaticism that some people have for oldies a bit perplexing. It's almost always pure nostalgia. The NMA Fallout freaks come to mind.

I think almost everyone here has been around for most of the evolution of the games industry. I have fond memories of '80s and '90s games. How can you not have good memories of games that revolutionized the industry/world and are the basis for all of the games out today? But, to say that some of the modern stuff hasn't evolved way, way past most of the oldies is ridiculous.

This kind of stance is just as pathetic as gamers who won't play old stuff simply because it's "ugly". I suppose that there's nothing to be done for such people though. Those of us who are fascinated by games from any year are seemingly a rather small group.

But, to say that modern stuff hasn't evolved way, way past most of the oldies is ridiculous.

They may have evolved in some ways but not in the ways that matter.

Story in games hasn't really evolved. It's been fairly static.

The way that games are controlled have remained pretty static. The Wii changes this up a little bit but hell we were using light guns back in NES days, the Wii is just a further evolution of that (took waaaaayy too long for something so simple). (I don't like the Wii control anyway, prefer my mouse but many people do seem to like it).

We have higher resolutions and textures but the way they are animated and drawn sucks. Prince of Persia (the 2D ver) is constantly praised for it's animation.

DRM has gotten worse. Codewheels/hunting for paragraph 2 word 10 was almost fun in comparison to the hassle you go through today.

Load times haven't gotten any better. People complement Fallout 3 on it's loading times but it's an old ass engine and it's on 3 seperate consoles. Loading times of course are good there.

I think the fanatacism people have for old games is equalled by the fanaticism people have for new games with a small minority somewhere in the middle.

I play mostly modern games but tend to gravitate toward those with a little more depth to them.

One thing I have often lamented is this. I love Gunship 2000, especially the multiple helicopter control. I also love Battlefield Vietnam's helicopters. I'd love to combine BFV's choppers and graphics engine into a GS2000-style single player campaign, with dynamic objectives, multiple chopper control, etc.

So I guess my point is that there are things from each era that I like, and would really like to combine a few of them.

If I was a really good modder I'd try creating a mod for BFV doing just that...however, I don't have the time to learn it, and it would be quite difficult with that engine I think.

EDIT: I have to say that the Project Reality mod for Battlefield 2 does an excellent job of recreating tank meeting engagements, working together as a tank crew (3 people is the most effective tank unit--driver, gunner, TC), and generally making things more realistic. I'd highly recommend people check it out if you currently have BF2. www.RealityMod.com. This is the closest thing I've found to M1 Tank Platoon.

DosFreak wrote:

...Story in games hasn't really evolved. It's been fairly static....

Yeah true. But I'm not sure what to expect here. You have adventure games (they are definitely still out there) which are like interactive novels. And then you have shooters/sims in which the story just enables the action. I think story gets used as well as it can in each genre.

DosFreak wrote:

...The way that games are controlled have remained pretty static....

True. But again we have quite a variety. You can build yourself a multi-monitor flight sim cabinet with full controls if you want, but most games are best served by the highly proven KB/mouse. Lots of goofy controller ideas have come and gone, and the standbys remain.

Wii is neat but almost always plays like a gimmick. Very few games really use it well. Heck, very few games on that system are worth playing at all. I own one. 😀

DosFreak wrote:

...We have higher resolutions and textures but the way they are animated and drawn sucks....

Yeah animation is a problem. 3D is starting to become very, very good in fidelity, but animation is definitely behind. They really have to use motion capture to make humans move naturally. 3D makes animation very difficult.

DosFreak wrote:

...DRM has gotten worse....

Actually I think this is somewhat arguable. The biggest annoyance I find that I have to deal with usually is having the DVD in the drive, or having Steam running. And I can just get a nocd anyway because they are out there for everything. This works for activation limits too. It's not like nocds are going away.

DRM's usefulness is definitely questionable though, as all the torrents out there always come cracked and ready 2 go. So I'm not sure what the suits think they're solving with it.

What is very unacceptable about DRM is when they tell you what you can and can't have on your PC, like with Securom and Daemon Tools. I use Daemon Tools for all sorts of non-evil things. Telling me that I can't use that wonderful bit of freeware is not something I'll just accept.

DosFreak wrote:

...Load times haven't gotten any better.

Well the great technical rat race probably makes this an impossibility. Hardware is always pushed to the limit. And storage subsystems are still horribly slow.

I really really think this is stupid.There are lots of great games out there to play.There's lot of shit out there but guess,10 years ago there was also lots of shit!And yeah playing games of the past is not the best solution around.As much as I love some games they are unplayable now(Daggerfall)and I often give up.I mean it's nice and all that but some gameplay factors have improved.10 years ago there was quake 2 and half life and now it's Crysis and Far Cry 2.Seriously,it's a good time for games we're in.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

WolverineDK wrote:

Yeah, and that is illegal to do here so I know where you are getting with that. And I am not going to say anything further in that direction.

😒 Oh please. He doesn't come here and put links to abandonware site on this forum; he merely puts them on his own site, at his own risk. Let's not be too uptight about it.

I am not uptight, I just didn´t want this thread to be kicked to pieces thanks to my more liberal views on abandonware, but you made me laugh 😀 and thanks for that 😀

Chris Taylor wrote:

As the author, let me say first, thanks for reading.

Huh? How did you find this forum that fast?

WolverineDK wrote:

I am not uptight, I just didn´t want this thread to be kicked to pieces thanks to my more liberal views on abandonware,

Oh, then we're on the same side.

WolverineDK wrote:

but you made me laugh 😀 and thanks for that 😀

Huh?

jamon51 wrote:

I play mostly modern games but tend to gravitate toward those with a little more depth to them.

One thing I have often lamented is this. I love Gunship 2000, especially the multiple helicopter control. I also love Battlefield Vietnam's helicopters. I'd love to combine BFV's choppers and graphics engine into a GS2000-style single player campaign, with dynamic objectives, multiple chopper control, etc.

So I guess my point is that there are things from each era that I like, and would really like to combine a few of them.

I think jamon51 hits home with his post, because this is exactly my stance as well.

If I have to choose between Privateer 1 and Privateer Remake with better sound and graphics but retains the depths of the gameplay, then I'll choose the latter. However, if the choice is between Privateer 1 and Crysis, I'll definitely choose Privateer all the way to Sunday. Period.

I'm not asking too much from modern game publishers (or maybe my expectations have been severely lowered after experiencing Doom 3); I'm not expecting The Gameplay Quantum Leap (TM). If they merely create a carbon-copy of gameplay concepts from the past, packaged with better graphic, I'll be happy with that. Heck, even if they blatantly create exact clone of Sword of the Samurai with better graphics, without any "gameplay enchancements" whatsoever, I'll still be happy with that.

BUT NOOOOOOOO.

Color me pessimistic, but I don't even think such remakes will be considered "profitable" by modern game publishers. As Chris Taylor has put it:

Chris Taylor wrote:

consumer landscapes are far different now,

And while we're at it, here are some of my "more structured" complaints about modern games:

Too much appealing to the mainstream

Privateer 2 has better graphic, but the gameplay is much less dynamic than the original Privateer. Deus Ex: Invisible Wars has better graphic, but is more dumbed down than the first Deus Ex. Why many newer games are getting like console games? Can't they put better graphics while retaining the depth and complexity of the old times? Ah yes, the typical excuse: to appeal broader audience. Does it never happen to them that deep gameplay like that of Sword of the Samurai can be easy enough to be enjoyed by the "mainsteram audience"?

Too much appealing to the grognards

This is a very rare case that only happens to a single genre: flight simulations. No offense, hardcore flightsimmers, but many gamers out there are not interested to memorize horde of buttons and struggling with the overly realistic flight models. I'm a flightsimmer myself, but honestly, I enjoy Secret Weapons of Luftwaffe better than LOMAC. The former may have a non-existent flight models, but it allows us to enjoy strategic planning, lets us to prioritize and decide our own targets, and makes our flights actually matter to the course of war, while the latter doesn't even have dynamic campaign! Probably that's also why I always think that mid to later 90s is the best period for flight sim, because it has titles like Total Air War and Mig Alley which give us dynamic gameplay and strategic involvement without "punishing" us too much with realism.

And while I'm at it, I'd like to point out that relatively simple game like Origin's Strike Commander can present a deep and engaging gameplay without being too complex. The game allows us to manage certain aspects of mercenary squadron (should I kill him with expensive AMRAAM, or should I take the risk of killing him with cannon to save the bucks?), as well as presenting a nice story. And I think Strike Commander is sufficiently easy to appeal to "mainstream audience", so perhaps this is a lesson should be taken not only by flightsim publishers, but by those of other genres as well. But noooo! F-16 Agressor, which was said to be "Strike Commander-alike", totally remove the mercenary management part.

Now we have kickass 3D technology, but...

...but we're still limited to first-person shooters. Look, I know shooters are cool, and even bad shooters still provide quite a nce diversion, but does every action game out there have to be first-person shooters? Aren't there any other point of views than first-person? If they can't be creative about gameplay, can't they at least be creative about perspective?

I don't know about others, but to me, what stops me from playing computer RPGs in mid-1996 is the endless use of first-person view. Fortunately Fallout came in and gave back the niceties of watching your characters from above; to see what armor they wear or what weapons they have, and especially to see them duking it out with the enemies. But does a game need to have RPG or strategy elements to eschew first-person view? Origin's Crusader series is probably a great example that an action game does not need to be first-person to be great. And if somehow they issue a remake of Sword of the Samurai, please of please don't make the action first-person.

"Deep = complex and difficult" fallacy?

Have game publishers today fallen into the thoughts that games need to be watered down to appeal to the "mainstream audience"? I think games like Strike Commander and Sword of the Samurai are simple and easy enough for "mainstream audience" while still being deep and dynamic, so why most action games today need to be watered down and stripped off their "deep elements"? And despite its more complex gameplay, I still think that the interface and gameplay mechanics of Fragile Allegiance are easy enough for "beginner gamers", so why every RTS today should recycle the concept of C&C over and over again?

CRPGs: good examples of "best of both worlds"

If there are old games I play purely out of nostalgia, they are RPGs. When it goes to RPGs, I don't really need DOSBOX, because modern RPGs like KOTOR, Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights present good graphics while still retaining the good gameplay of the past.

There were times when RPGs were almost reduced to watered down hack and slash. Fortunately, while Doom and Quake had ruined the action genre, Diablo just failed to ruin RPGs (fucking hah!). I'm not sure, but I think it was because Fallout came out and showed us that great SVGA graphics and easy interface doesn't mean you have to butcher gameplay.

Too bad other genres like action and flightsims failed to survive like RPG. The question is: why?

KAN : In no way would I call Privateer's gameplay 'deep'. It's basically Elite in the WCII engine - relying on the same type of reputation system to make you a greater or lesser attractive target for the game AI. This makes it essentially a shootemup with purchaseable upgrades - the trading system is tacked on and market prices are rarely affected by in system wars and/or politics. On the other hand the far more modern Starlancer and Freelancer are both deeper games and they are both more well rounded than the original game and remake. Starlancer has a much better flight model and involving storyline with factions that react realistically to each other (also affecting the price of traded items and upgrades) and the player while Freelancer has all of that plus the necessity of specific upgrades for certain enemies and environments, spacelane robbery and MMO style multiplayer, Freelancer's only major letdown (for me) is in its mouse-based control system as it breaks with the reality of a ship combat system, ie no real joy in the cockpit 😉 I still play Freelancer from time to time, even now and while I tried Vega Strike and Privateer Remake, I really didn't enjoy them as much as Freelancer.

I think that being able to purchase upgrades doesn't make a game deep imho, it just adds another level of gameplay - a pretty shallow one at that. Strike Commander, the example you pur forward, was an undeniably shallow game with it's extremely weak flight model and almost absent mercenary management aspects.

Continually rehashing the 'earn upgrades' scenario doesn't add depth to simple gameplay, it just make simple games seem deeper because you have to jump through more hoops to achieve the same type of upgrades that were dropped out of the sky in 80s shoot em ups; money, ammo, sheilds, weapons and power.

There are ways of adding depth to a game that don't involve the obvious "earn x for killing y enemy so you can purchase z upgrades" and modern games like Left 4 Dead are trying to do this as we speak. Why Left 4 Dead? Well, look at this way, you have handguns that have unlimited ammo but they don't kill very effectively - every other offensive weapon is limited so you have to use them judiciously - grabbing them wherever possible and distirbuting them amongst the team as necessary. Then we have the team player elements:-

1. You have to try your best to stay together as infected rush attacks can easily end in the loss of team mates and so less gunners will be around to help out.

2. You really have to make good use of close quarters without injuring team mates so that you don't use of all of your health packs up too quickly, leaving you open to being weakened against further assaults.

3. Players need to be wary of aggroing enemies by avoiding certain specific elements such as alarmed cars which bring rush onslaughts your way.

4. Players need to wary of super equipped enemies such as the Boomer (whose explosive attack draws the infected attack) and others all of whom can easily disable individual players and weaken the team as a whole.

There are more things to think about such as the environmental aspects from closing doors to slow onslaughts, to using switches and the utilisation and defense of environmentally hosted fixed weapons too.

On the surface it looks like any other FPS but as you have to contend with all of these aspects at once in order to reach the level endings it becomes clearer that this isn't just another shooter. Left 4 Dead is a Survival Horror Simulation. It teaches players to make the most of the team aspects and that they have to act as small 'specialist' squads, managing all of these elements at the same time to survive in such harsh conditions. Yes it's twitch gameplay, but it has a lot of depth. Simple games can be extremely deep, like checkers or poker or PORTAL. Complex =! deep. Deep gameplay comes from refinement and much of modern gaming is exactly that.

I think it's extremely unfair to complain like this about the state of modern gaming by touting awful examples such as F-16 Agressor (hated by almost everyone) or Invisible War (almost as equally despised for its lack of depth, regardles of its predecessor). For one thing those games are neither modern, nor leading examples of the direction that their respective genres have taken and they certainly didn't win many accolades but instead garnered a lot of complaint as neither delivered what they initially promised. That's more a fault of their indivual development teams and publishers and isn't really a reflection of the 'state of modern gaming'.

A more widely acclaimed game like STALKER, which also failed to reach the height of its lofty promises (thanks to its publisher for the most part, who ripped whole aspects from it, in order to get it released at all), did actually show that modern games can add depth and breadth without just resorting to the 'purchaseable upgrades' meme but also by adding aspects that make for a more believable, combative enivironment. While it certainly isn't a complete success as either an RPG or FPS it is definitely a good step in the direction towards more emergent gameplay.

I hate to say it KAN but what I think a lot of what I'm hearing from your POV is just more of the "I miss my old games and I want them with a new coat of paint' that we seem to be hearing from many older gamers these days.

Maybe that's not a bad thing either - hell I'd love to see a more modern version of Magic Carpet or Syndicate made by Molly himself, but for the most part I don't see things the same way. While I loved many of the games I played ages ago, I don't want to play them in modern guises, I want new games and new gameplay aspects. I'm also happy to see where the current trends lead too. The 80s also had strong trends and lot of me too gameplay but in amongst the crowd there were some really amazing and enlghtening experiences too. I'm not so jaded that I can't see that now and it saddens me when older games cry over the modern trends because I think that there are some real gems around these days too and we have the rise of the casual gamer market to thank for that. Without them the market might have died down again, as it has in the past. Moreover, we wouldn't see games that require long development times and expensve budgets either. Hell, without them we might not even have Portal! Sure Narbuncluar Drop is nice as a tech demo but it also might have stopped there....now we have an SDK for games that can use Portal tech to lead to new ideas and expressions of gameplay that may have never come to fruition if the casual gamer market hadn't exploded as it has.

Anyway, I digress.

Chris : There are some mmo combat flight sims that allow you to play in various specific roles of an aircraft. I did enjoy Megafortress at the time too, but it's bugs really annoyed. I see and understand your reasoning and it is certainly the case that the casual gamer market is more catered to than any other these days, with the exception of virtual worlds, but the fact is that realistic vehicular combat is just something that most AAA publishers prefer to avoid since the threat of terrorism has become more publicised.

dh4rm4 wrote:

KAN : In no way would I call Privateer's gameplay 'deep'. It's basically Elite in the WCII engine - relying on the same type of reputation system to make you a greater or lesser attractive target for the game AI. This makes it essentially a shootemup with purchaseable upgrades - the trading system is tacked on and market prices are rarely affected by in system wars and/or politics.

Privateer ain't perfect. It has weaknesses, of course, but while the market prices are rarely affected by wars and politics, the world still reacts dynamically to your actions. It's probably not much, but it's still better than typical shooters that force you through series of linear levels.

dh4rm4 wrote:

Freelancer has all of that plus the necessity of specific upgrades for certain enemies and environments, spacelane robbery

The fact that rare gems like Freelancer exist doesn't mean most game publishers out there are magically innovating great gameplays instead of sticking with "market-safe" formula of first person shooters (and/or real-time strategies).

dh4rm4 wrote:

Complex =! deep.

That's one of my points too.

dh4rm4 wrote:

Deep gameplay comes from refinement and much of modern gaming is exactly that.

And here's the center of the whole argument, and I think this is the major point of our disagreement.

Refinement alone is not enough. The problem with game publishers today is that they tend to refine the "tried-and-true" formula of first-person shooters and/or real-time strategy over and over again, instead of experimenting with different gameplay elements and dimensions (and of course, combining them correctly). Half-Life 2 is a very refined shooter, but at the very core, it's just another shooter. Consider this comparison:

Half-Life 2:
You enter the level. You make your way through various Combine troops while shooting things around and trying to stay alive. Eventually you face the final obstacle (level boss, puzzle, etc). After breaking the sweat to finish the level, you are rewarded by.... going to the next level! Whoa.

Sword of the Samurai:
You enter your rival's castle. You make your way through guards and archers while shooting things around and trying to stay alive. Eventually you find the poor bastard you're supposed to kidnap. After breaking the sweat to kidnap your rival's family member, you are rewarded by getting advantage over your rival, which matters to your ultimate goal of becoming the next Shogun.

Secret Weapons of Luftwaffe:
You enter German airspace. You make your way through Bf-109s and Me-262s while shooting things around and trying to stay alive. Eventually you find the pesky airfield and bomb it into oblivion. After breaking the sweat to eliminate your target (which is, by the way, you've decided yourself), you are rewarded by reduced fighter resistance. You then return to the strategic level with big smile, knowing that you can now concentrate on industrial complex since the airfield has been eliminated (by the way, who cares that SWOTL doesn't have realistic flight models when you can do this sort of thing?).

See the difference now? Refinement alone is not enough.

dh4rm4 wrote:

I hate to say it KAN but what I think a lot of what I'm hearing from your POV is just more of the "I miss my old games and I want them with a new coat of paint' that we seem to be hearing from many older gamers these days.

I hate to say it dh4rm4 but you're wrong. The fact that I prefer my old games in new coat of pain over typical modern games only means that I'll be even more happy to see exceptions like Freelancer, Team Apache, S.T.A.L.K.E.R, Grand Theft Auto, and Bioshock.

PS:
When I'm talking about Strike Commander, I'm talking in the context of introductory flightsims (fake flightsims). Yes, its mercenary management elements is very thin, but at least it's still better than F-16 Multirole Fighter or MiG-29 Fulcrum, which gives you pretty graphics but linear and single-dimensional gameplay.

Does F-16 Multirole Fighter allow you to make decision in buying ordnance while worrying about the cash? No. Does it reward you for taking risk of guns-only dogfight? No. Does it have immersive universe and memorable characters? Hell no.

Let's take another example: Their Finest Hour is unrefined in many ways, but its multidimensional and non-linear gameplay make it shine compared to Multirole Fighter's "too much mainstream" gameplay.

But it doesn't matter now. Introductory flightsim is already a dead genre, and we have less and less alternative to first-person shooter.

Personally, I have to agree with those who find modern games disappointing. I would love to see games with modern graphics and physics that were as innovative as the older games. However, what I see are modern game companies just churning out the same things over and over.

Oh, there are some innovative games that come out. However, they are in the minority. What I see in recent releases are endless sequels or rehashing of the same game with a new engine. Some times, they actually have the same (or at least almost the same,) story line. Mainly it's just variations on a theme. Go kill a bunch of bad guys, and then kill their leader. Rinse and repeat. Now for the variations: The bad guys are zombies, no they're aliens, no they're Canadians, no they're aliens (but from a different planet.) Wait, we cannot forget the demons, no devils, no.... etc...

Lets, just for example, take a game that came out in the early 80's that was considered innovative at the time, and produced sequels. Ok, one of my favorite series. First, was Akalabeth (often refered to as Ultima 0.) It was innovative mainly because computer games were pretty much non-existant at the time. As the series progressed, every game had something that made it innovative. Instead of every game basically being the same with just an improvement on the engine, each game offered something totally new. Otherewise, Ultima IX would have been a maze monster bash with really cool graphics. Ok, maybe I should limit that to Ultima VIII. As Ultima IX was a dissapointment, and could almost actually fall into that maze monster bash catagory.

Now, here is where I change hats. This really isn't the fault of game companies. Or, at least, it isn't 'completely' the fault of the companies. I've even found myself looking at a game that may be innovative, and refraining from buying it because I didn't want to take a chance that I wouldn't like it. Game companies are in it to make money (and there is nothing wrong with that.) They see innovative games come out, and not sell very well at first. This tells them that the consumer doesn't want innovative, so they don't even try. The cost of producing a modern game, even when adjustments are made for inflations, is considerably higher than it used to be. In the 80's, a game may have cost a single producer nothing but time to make, or a company maybe $10,000 for salaries and such. At that time, most games had a single programmer. Usually no more than a team of 5 or 6. That is not the case today. So producing a new game, constitutes a larger risk. You bet, that if a company sees a trend they are going to follow it.

Now, on to remakes. Here I have to say I'm on the fence a bit. On the one hand, it's basically the same thing that people are complainging about. Noting new, nothing innovative, nothing risky. After all, they are taking something that already exists and just improving on it. On the other hand, there are a lot of games I would love to see updated with modern graphics and engines.

How could this be fixed? Well, first, the trend towards the 'safe' needs to be changed. The only way to do this, that I can think of, would be to reduce the risk of not liking that new game that sounds cool. The way they do it now is just to release the tried and true. Instead, produce more playable demos and make them easier to get. Companies need to realize that the $60 price tag on a non-returnable item constitutes a major investment to the individual. Sure, they spent $5 million producing that game, and $60 is a drop in the bucket in comparison. However, the individual may only be pulling in $30 thousand a year (instead of $5 billion in net profits.) So, of course the end user is loathe to take chances. Give them something that lets them know that there is no risk for that particular game (magazine reviews are not enough.) Then give the release more time before deciding that the sales just weren't enough.

Slightly off topic, but another trend in modern games that I don't like. Modern games (even those that are released just for the PC or Mac,) suffer from what I call consolitis. That is, they appear to be designed around the limitations of a console system insead of taking advantage of the home computer's greater input range or system specs. In extension to this, the appearance that fewer and fewer games are actually coming out just for the PC/Mac. The main reason I see for this is that there are considerably more console gamers out there than computer gamers. Well, consoles are cheaper than computer systems. So, of course there are more console gamers than computer gamers. However, producers don't seem to have any problem with making games different for different consoles. So, why can't they make them different for computer -v- console? I don't see anything wrong with a computer game having larger or more levels than the console equivalent. Or even the computer game using a single map while the console breaks it up into different 'zones'. The answer I get from companies (on the only 2 occasions I actually asked a company about this,) was that gamers would be upset if the computer version of a game was better than the console version. Personally, I'm upset that I can't play Yoda on my PS3 version of the new Soul Calibur.

This has been rehashed many times before and I'll use the arcade gaming industry as an analogy.

The height of the arcade industry was between 1979-1985. While many attribute the crash of the arcade game market to the introduction of the gaming console or personal computers, I feel it was because arcade games became less interesting right around that time. It was the early 80's where the unique games like Pac Man, Tempest, Crazy Climber, Venture, Galaxian, Qix, Zaxxon and others were born. A lot of these games were totally unique from each other and had to be developed within the confines of strict hardware requirements. The programmers had to be creative not only in the code, but in the game play.

As of the mid 80's where graphics, RAM and CPU horsepower was less of a concern (for arcade machines.... PC's were still in their infancy), the programmers could be sloppy and follow formulas that gave great visual pizazz, but less interesting gameplay. Every game became a clone of Street Fighter or some generic racing game. Sound familiar?

So the interesting games, or perhaps just the talented developers, moved to the PC, and Apple, and Commodore, etc. Personal computers of every variant once again had hardware limitations and best games of the time pushed those limitations, yet had to work within them. Developers tried unique things. The games and players benefited.

Nowadays, formulaic games are commonplace once again. I suppose the cycle just continues.

But back to arcade games, yes modern arcade games (the few even made anymore) have all the benefits of modern technology, but it's not just nostalgia that brings us back to the old games. But no doubt that is at least some if it.