I typed a rant about video games in my LJ the other day which i think has some interesting points. As i thought some of the points were relevent to a community of people who love the Tex Murphy games, i thought i'd post it here and see what you guys think.
One of Dave's famous sleep deprived rants... "Why old video games are better than the ones today"
So i'm talking to my mate opticmoose about old video games.
See last week i got dosbox running two of the classics of my old game collection. "Wing Commander: Privateer" and "The Pandora Directive". Since he loves old games too, he hunted down "Out of This World" and "Flashback" and sent them to me. I haven't played these games in yonks. They just don't make games like that anymore.
You sit down and watch the intro to Out of This World. Go on, find a copy, get dosbox and do it! Play the first level. How the hell did a game with such crappy graphics and almost no sound become so immersive and captivating? Ok, so the graphics were jaw dropping for the time. Still, everything is pretty basically designed but superbly animated. The direction on the cut scenes is tops too. And the fun factor! Figuring out just what the smeg to do after you've died for the gazillionth time! Ok, so there's a level of frustration, but it's quite a journey none the less. For Flashback, they took their award winning formula and stuck it into overdrive. That game never gets boring for me.
So anyways, my point.
I guess you could call this similar to what Penny Arcade did. I'm wondering when the game industry started becoming like Bollywood. That's right, i call it Bollywood cause it seems that they crap out millions of games these days without fixing the problems, and almost all of them are $#it. There are a few hollywood productions, but their wow factor is more about sight and sound than fun and freedom.
Maybe that's the problem. Tim Schaffer, the guy behind the wonderful adventure game "Grim Fandango" said that he thought the games industry went downhill after graphics were introduced. His reasoning is graphics came along and brought limitations with them. Now i personally think he's a bit off base because text adventures had their limitations too, but i can see where he's coming from. As the technology got more advanced, the scope of the games got smaller. There was less freedom, there was less content. What we got was a semi-linear thrill ride that made us think the game had been worth our while. I guess perhaps i can liken it to when i saw Episode 2. When i got out of that cinema, i was on a geek high. I thought it was the greatest thing i'd seen. The next day, the cracks started appearing in the armour. Day later, it fell apart.
If i had to pick a game where this really started to become evident to me, it would probably have to be Quake 3. There were probably ones before that but this sticks out in my mind. Quake 3 wasn't a game. Quake 3 was an interactive graphics engine. It had all the content of a shaved badger, and as you're probably thinking to yourselves, that doesn't even make sense. What can i say? I should have been asleep hours ago. I have to work again tonight too. Anyway, what i've typed here is a long step away from the small amount of discussion i had with my mate Cam but there's one more interesting point i want to bring up.
Now some of my favourite games are from what we call the fmv era. Not many gamers looks upon those years with much fondness. It was the mid-ninties and in my mind i think the middle ground between the games of old and the games of new. Now the reason most gamers hate this era was because of the crap produced using the technology. I will admit that only a small percentage of games from that era i look at fondly. The rest have more ham than a butcher shop's window. I think it's the technology that made it the middle point. People were still making the old types of games but suddenly everyone was like, "we can improve our games by having actors instead of animated sprites!". Games i look upon fondly of that era that i've played are the Tex Murphy games, Wing Commander 3, Wing Commander 4, Gabriel Knight 2 and Spycraft. Oh and i guess The 7th Guest isn't too bad, but i'm being nice mentioning it here.
still, the reason why a lot of the fmv games sucked was because those limitations started cropping up with the new technology. I really want to play Privateer 2 because apparently while being a fmv game, it still has the scope and freedom of the original sprite game.
So yeah, that's my spiel for now. I'm sure many points will come to me afterwards. Just a few things to end with. I'm talking about PC gaming here. Consoles are kind of a different kettle of fish. Maybe i'll approach that topic another day. I grew up on both. I got my first PC and my Nintendo around the same time in my childhood. Before that i was playing Atari at my best friend's place and playing Rampage, Paratropper, Alley Cat and Police Quest on my Dad's computer at work.
Also, i find it funny that i recently spent a grand upgrading my computer to the point where i can play Doom 3 with almost full features and no slowdown, and i spend my time playing dos games on a dos emulator.
So, thoughts on this dissertation?
One of Dave's famous sleep deprived rants... "Why old video games are better than the ones today"
So i'm talking to my mate opticmoose about old video games.
See last week i got dosbox running two of the classics of my old game collection. "Wing Commander: Privateer" and "The Pandora Directive". Since he loves old games too, he hunted down "Out of This World" and "Flashback" and sent them to me. I haven't played these games in yonks. They just don't make games like that anymore.
You sit down and watch the intro to Out of This World. Go on, find a copy, get dosbox and do it! Play the first level. How the hell did a game with such crappy graphics and almost no sound become so immersive and captivating? Ok, so the graphics were jaw dropping for the time. Still, everything is pretty basically designed but superbly animated. The direction on the cut scenes is tops too. And the fun factor! Figuring out just what the smeg to do after you've died for the gazillionth time! Ok, so there's a level of frustration, but it's quite a journey none the less. For Flashback, they took their award winning formula and stuck it into overdrive. That game never gets boring for me.
So anyways, my point.
I guess you could call this similar to what Penny Arcade did. I'm wondering when the game industry started becoming like Bollywood. That's right, i call it Bollywood cause it seems that they crap out millions of games these days without fixing the problems, and almost all of them are $#it. There are a few hollywood productions, but their wow factor is more about sight and sound than fun and freedom.
Maybe that's the problem. Tim Schaffer, the guy behind the wonderful adventure game "Grim Fandango" said that he thought the games industry went downhill after graphics were introduced. His reasoning is graphics came along and brought limitations with them. Now i personally think he's a bit off base because text adventures had their limitations too, but i can see where he's coming from. As the technology got more advanced, the scope of the games got smaller. There was less freedom, there was less content. What we got was a semi-linear thrill ride that made us think the game had been worth our while. I guess perhaps i can liken it to when i saw Episode 2. When i got out of that cinema, i was on a geek high. I thought it was the greatest thing i'd seen. The next day, the cracks started appearing in the armour. Day later, it fell apart.
If i had to pick a game where this really started to become evident to me, it would probably have to be Quake 3. There were probably ones before that but this sticks out in my mind. Quake 3 wasn't a game. Quake 3 was an interactive graphics engine. It had all the content of a shaved badger, and as you're probably thinking to yourselves, that doesn't even make sense. What can i say? I should have been asleep hours ago. I have to work again tonight too. Anyway, what i've typed here is a long step away from the small amount of discussion i had with my mate Cam but there's one more interesting point i want to bring up.
Now some of my favourite games are from what we call the fmv era. Not many gamers looks upon those years with much fondness. It was the mid-ninties and in my mind i think the middle ground between the games of old and the games of new. Now the reason most gamers hate this era was because of the crap produced using the technology. I will admit that only a small percentage of games from that era i look at fondly. The rest have more ham than a butcher shop's window. I think it's the technology that made it the middle point. People were still making the old types of games but suddenly everyone was like, "we can improve our games by having actors instead of animated sprites!". Games i look upon fondly of that era that i've played are the Tex Murphy games, Wing Commander 3, Wing Commander 4, Gabriel Knight 2 and Spycraft. Oh and i guess The 7th Guest isn't too bad, but i'm being nice mentioning it here.
still, the reason why a lot of the fmv games sucked was because those limitations started cropping up with the new technology. I really want to play Privateer 2 because apparently while being a fmv game, it still has the scope and freedom of the original sprite game.
So yeah, that's my spiel for now. I'm sure many points will come to me afterwards. Just a few things to end with. I'm talking about PC gaming here. Consoles are kind of a different kettle of fish. Maybe i'll approach that topic another day. I grew up on both. I got my first PC and my Nintendo around the same time in my childhood. Before that i was playing Atari at my best friend's place and playing Rampage, Paratropper, Alley Cat and Police Quest on my Dad's computer at work.
Also, i find it funny that i recently spent a grand upgrading my computer to the point where i can play Doom 3 with almost full features and no slowdown, and i spend my time playing dos games on a dos emulator.
So, thoughts on this dissertation?
Looking back ten, fifteen or twenty years, I think that the big issue is that back then there was simply more games made at much faster rate. Proportionately I'd say there was just as much uninspired crap squeezed into basic molds. However, with a much larger volume of games overall it stands to reason that there were more games that were of high quality or were daringly experimental. Undoubtedly nostalgia has a part in reminiscing about days of yore. Or is anyone going to claim that there weren't dozens of Commando or R-Type clones that really didn't have much anything going for them.
I can't really understand all the focus on graphics these days. I've sometimes watched gaming programs on TV and when they say that the graphics look 'a bit dated' I simply don't see it. It looks wonderful to me! It probably has a lot to do with playing computer games for such a long time and plenty of retrogaming. So far I've played through one game in that horrible four-color CGA palette.
There are few new games these days that interest me. Looking at the latest year, what really is there? GTA: San Andreas, Metal Gear Solid 3, Knights of the Old Republic 2, Jade Empire and Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay. That's pretty much what I plan to get as soon as I manage to update my computer and they are released for PC. Let's compare this for example to 1994 (since that's how far back Mobygames goes): X-COM: UFO Defense, Beneath a Steel Sky, System Shock, Wing Commander 3, Tie Fighter, Colonization, Shadow of the Comet, Sam & Max Hit the Road, King's Quest 7, Raptor, One Must Fall 2097, Ultima 8, Theme Park, DreamWeb, Dark Sun 2 and of course Under a Killing Moon. Those are all games I've played and enjoyed and that's just what I noticed browsing quickly.
I've never owned a console and never played online games. Don't really see any reason to change that. Though I do use emulators some. Are PC games dying out in the face of onslaught of console games? I don't really think so. I remember a computer games magazine back from 1991 where it anticipated it. I've noticed that in a supermarket here they've recently halved the shelf space for PC games. That had me worried for a moment and then I thought back some 15 years and remembered another store around where I grew up. A long shelf full of 8-bit Nintendo games and computer games stashed in some corner. And I have to mention the plethora of games developed by private individuals and small companies which are freeware or sold via the Internet. Computer gaming will be here for a long time.
I've read that the hardware in Playstation 3 is optimized for flashy graphics, while crippling the ability to program such things as adaptive AIs in games. That has me worried.
Still, it'll be interesting to see where the future of gaming. Seems to me we're not very far from the point where you can't really improve graphics any more. Where do we go from there? More content?
I can't really understand all the focus on graphics these days. I've sometimes watched gaming programs on TV and when they say that the graphics look 'a bit dated' I simply don't see it. It looks wonderful to me! It probably has a lot to do with playing computer games for such a long time and plenty of retrogaming. So far I've played through one game in that horrible four-color CGA palette.
There are few new games these days that interest me. Looking at the latest year, what really is there? GTA: San Andreas, Metal Gear Solid 3, Knights of the Old Republic 2, Jade Empire and Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay. That's pretty much what I plan to get as soon as I manage to update my computer and they are released for PC. Let's compare this for example to 1994 (since that's how far back Mobygames goes): X-COM: UFO Defense, Beneath a Steel Sky, System Shock, Wing Commander 3, Tie Fighter, Colonization, Shadow of the Comet, Sam & Max Hit the Road, King's Quest 7, Raptor, One Must Fall 2097, Ultima 8, Theme Park, DreamWeb, Dark Sun 2 and of course Under a Killing Moon. Those are all games I've played and enjoyed and that's just what I noticed browsing quickly.
I've never owned a console and never played online games. Don't really see any reason to change that. Though I do use emulators some. Are PC games dying out in the face of onslaught of console games? I don't really think so. I remember a computer games magazine back from 1991 where it anticipated it. I've noticed that in a supermarket here they've recently halved the shelf space for PC games. That had me worried for a moment and then I thought back some 15 years and remembered another store around where I grew up. A long shelf full of 8-bit Nintendo games and computer games stashed in some corner. And I have to mention the plethora of games developed by private individuals and small companies which are freeware or sold via the Internet. Computer gaming will be here for a long time.
I've read that the hardware in Playstation 3 is optimized for flashy graphics, while crippling the ability to program such things as adaptive AIs in games. That has me worried.
Still, it'll be interesting to see where the future of gaming. Seems to me we're not very far from the point where you can't really improve graphics any more. Where do we go from there? More content?
People are crazy and times are strange
I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range
I used to care, but things have changed
-Bob Dylan
I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range
I used to care, but things have changed
-Bob Dylan
Well with consoles, it also was a case of saturation of the market. Every two bit developer with an idea threw their 2 cents in and made a game for the NES and the SNES and Genesis were kinda like that too.
These days you still have plenty of games made from movie licenses and the like but the successful games are all the same. There seems to only be a couple genres that companys will develop titles for because of the low risk factor. Maybe it has to do with shorter deadlines and a lot more work going into creating the graphics and sound. In short, games cost a lot more to make these days so the companys want to make sure they get a return on their business venture.
It's good that a few developers still take risks and release interesting and unique games. Another problem though is that if it's not a big hit, the stores won't stock it so there's not much chance to actually find the more experimental titles. Example of this is i couldn't find a copy anywhere of that adventure game released last year that emailed you clues and you used the net to find information. It was called "In Memorium" over here but i know it had a different name in the states.
I think perhaps with stores like EB, it's the same as the developers. They'll only stock the titles that they know will sell. Luckily here on the coast there's a shop owned by a real gamer. He stocks and will order in all kinds of stuff for PCs and consoles. Lot of 2nd hand stuff too.
I kind of blame gaming being thrust into the mainstream media round about the last half of the 90s, but that's another rant for another time.
These days you still have plenty of games made from movie licenses and the like but the successful games are all the same. There seems to only be a couple genres that companys will develop titles for because of the low risk factor. Maybe it has to do with shorter deadlines and a lot more work going into creating the graphics and sound. In short, games cost a lot more to make these days so the companys want to make sure they get a return on their business venture.
It's good that a few developers still take risks and release interesting and unique games. Another problem though is that if it's not a big hit, the stores won't stock it so there's not much chance to actually find the more experimental titles. Example of this is i couldn't find a copy anywhere of that adventure game released last year that emailed you clues and you used the net to find information. It was called "In Memorium" over here but i know it had a different name in the states.
I think perhaps with stores like EB, it's the same as the developers. They'll only stock the titles that they know will sell. Luckily here on the coast there's a shop owned by a real gamer. He stocks and will order in all kinds of stuff for PCs and consoles. Lot of 2nd hand stuff too.
I kind of blame gaming being thrust into the mainstream media round about the last half of the 90s, but that's another rant for another time.
Although can you really put too much blame on the developers for making crappy games? I mean...they're selling. People are buying their crappy games in droves. Doom 3 was a big seller. And that game was nothing more than a graphic's engine with demons.
Today it's much like Hollywood. Everything's about sequels. Why? Because the amount of money that a game costs has risen to gratituous amounts. Or at least compared to before. I believe I read that Pandora cost two million to make. And that was in...damn. When was it made? A while ago. Nowadays such a production might find itself in the teens. Perhaps twenty million. So, when a game developer decides what kind of game to make, they think about what would sell to the most amount of people.
Now then, according to most people when they talk about writing, you are supposed to write what you want, not what you think will sell. Thusly, what you write will mean more to you, and will not seem like a carbon copy of what's already out there. However, game companies see differently. They look at what's new and popular (Hmm...the urban scene looks big), and they release a game based on it (Need For Speed Underground, San Andreas), rather than put together a game that means something to them.
Just a though...while it would be cool to have another Tex Murphy game, I'd imagine if it was put in the hands of Electronic Arts, it would end up a first person shooter, they'd hire completely new actors...and Tex would probably fight the alien horde with his rocket launcher in the end. The graphics would be great.
Today it's much like Hollywood. Everything's about sequels. Why? Because the amount of money that a game costs has risen to gratituous amounts. Or at least compared to before. I believe I read that Pandora cost two million to make. And that was in...damn. When was it made? A while ago. Nowadays such a production might find itself in the teens. Perhaps twenty million. So, when a game developer decides what kind of game to make, they think about what would sell to the most amount of people.
Now then, according to most people when they talk about writing, you are supposed to write what you want, not what you think will sell. Thusly, what you write will mean more to you, and will not seem like a carbon copy of what's already out there. However, game companies see differently. They look at what's new and popular (Hmm...the urban scene looks big), and they release a game based on it (Need For Speed Underground, San Andreas), rather than put together a game that means something to them.
Just a though...while it would be cool to have another Tex Murphy game, I'd imagine if it was put in the hands of Electronic Arts, it would end up a first person shooter, they'd hire completely new actors...and Tex would probably fight the alien horde with his rocket launcher in the end. The graphics would be great.
yeah. I agree with what you said about writing. I have a similar philosophy when it comes to my cartooning. I've done a webcomic for over 4 years with very little in the way of readers, but i've found that for myself, cartooning, like writing follows this process.
You do what you enjoy. There are enough people in this world that someone out there will also share that enjoyment.
I guess that's where you get people like the adventure company and communities like ags. Adventure games are only dead in the mainstream market. Truth be told, most real gamers arn't too interested in that market to begin with. I know i spend a lot more time playing games on dosbox than i do the handful of new releases i have.
There are people out there who are making what they want to make and others are latching on to that.
Hell, i wrote a small adventure game with a mate of mine last year. We even started the design work. I just didn't have the patience to work out how to use ags.
One of these days ^^
You do what you enjoy. There are enough people in this world that someone out there will also share that enjoyment.
I guess that's where you get people like the adventure company and communities like ags. Adventure games are only dead in the mainstream market. Truth be told, most real gamers arn't too interested in that market to begin with. I know i spend a lot more time playing games on dosbox than i do the handful of new releases i have.
There are people out there who are making what they want to make and others are latching on to that.
Hell, i wrote a small adventure game with a mate of mine last year. We even started the design work. I just didn't have the patience to work out how to use ags.
One of these days ^^
Allow me your luck, or perhaps your inquistive nature which leads you to looking more into what you buy, then perhaps me.AMac wrote:I just don't buy crappy games. I dunno, I just read a lot of reviews and stuff and I have some developers that I trust, and gaming's just never really lagged for me...
But, I agree. Games just don't seem to have that enjoyment factor that they use to. I still get excited for playing Tex. I can sit and play Tex for 5+ hours. I can't think of any game in the past three years I could do that with other than Tex. I use to be able to play StarCraft and Final Fantasy VII that way, but even they have lost some of their old luster. Perhaps TM keeps some of it's allure because it's a chore to get it going sometimes and the inticipation just makes it that much better.
~Keck
