Do you guys ever miss how gaming USED to be?

[Derb]

Originally Posted by jsteinhauer

Now, I was not part of the gaming community from I'd say 85 through 2005, other than real RPG's and strategy games I'd play on my PC. I had no time for serious gaming and no money during high school, college, grad school, med school and residency. So I missed out on what consoles offered during that span.

That's hardcore.

I've gamed before those years but damn I dunno missing out on so many unique gaming experiences through consoles like Turbo Grafix 16, SNK Neo Geo Gold, Panasonic 3DO, Sony's PlayStation etc..

..no words

[jsteinhauer]

Originally Posted by Derb

That's hardcore.

I've gamed before those years but damn I dunno missing out on so many unique gaming experiences through consoles like Turbo Grafix 16, SNK Neo Geo Gold, Panasonic 3DO, Sony's PlayStation etc..

..no words

It's just life. I had a few games to play on Macs and PC's. There were some great games to play on PC in the 90's. Sim City. The Civilization series. Baldur's Gate. Icewind Dale. Grim Fandango. Myst series. A few others. I usually picked things up late, so they were cheap. In those days, network security was not what it is today, so if there was a location you frequented with a PC, you could install your game and it would be there. I'd keep a floppy disk with save files, in case things got cleaned up. Largely, though, I was busting my ass doing other things. And games were the same back then as they are today. When I start playing, I can completely lose track of time, and that would not have worked out for me back then.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by jsteinhauer

It's not that I don't know where you are coming from. Please understand, I have nearly begged my wife to try and play the few games that do have local co-op on PS3. She simply has no interest. When I was in middle school, it was regular to play games on one of the Atari systems at a friends house, taking turns, of course, but it was fun. My cousin had Intellivision. He had a few games we could play together. Now, I was not part of the gaming community from I'd say 85 through 2005, other than real RPG's and strategy games I'd play on my PC. I had no time for serious gaming and no money during high school, college, grad school, med school and residency. So I missed out on what consoles offered during that span. I had friends who played online PC games, but I could hardly afford an up to date PC to game on at the time.

It's simply that right now the demand for what you would like is too small to accommodate in the larger market. It's no one's fault. And I beg to differ about the namelessness and facelessness you describe. While, yes, it can be that way, there are groups of rather close friends who are members of this forum who I have played with from time to time who would not otherwise be able to game together, if not for the current model. It's actually quite fun and truly social to play games with familiar people. It's also quite fun to encounter outstanding individuals by chance and share a co-op experience. Friends and families are probably more apt to be spread out across the country today than they were twenty years ago.

But see, I guess that's my issue with the whole thing. How do developers KNOW there's no demand for it? How do they quantify that demand or lack there of? Did they conduct a poll? No I think a lot of it is assumption on their part. Of course most gamer's are internet connected now and of course most of them play online. However that doesn't mean you suddenly abandon a still perfectly good feature in the wake of it. It's like the "chicken before the egg" syndrome. Are fewer gamers doing localized multiplayer gaming because there's no interest or simply because fewer developers are bothering with it? I picked up Marvel Legos and Knack for the simple fact that it supports this and my son and I can play them.

[Dirk504]

Lol... gaming was more fun back then because we were all kids. Didn't have bills, jobs, children, wives, etc. Kids now will be saying the same thing when they're older. But yea, I miss playing Tecmo Bowl, Double Dragon, Contra, etc all day with my friends. I enjoy gaming now as well, who wants to play a 10hr campaign with 3 lives? I don't have time to master a game like that.

[jsteinhauer]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

Did they conduct a poll? No I think a lot of it is assumption on their part.

I think a multinational, multibillion dollar corporation has a marketing department that conducts polls and other types of research. Or they contract with a multinational, multibillion dollar market research corporation to do that work for them. And they know exactly which PS3 owners played Rage, RE, Borderlands, Beyond: Two Souls, etc. in local coop, because most play while connected and have agreed to share such data with Sony and its partners.

[PrestigeWorldwide]

Originally Posted by Dirk504

Lol... gaming was more fun back then because we were all kids. Didn't have bills, jobs, children, wives, etc. Kids now will be saying the same thing when they're older. But yea, I miss playing Tecmo Bowl, Double Dragon, Contra, etc all day with my friends. I enjoy gaming now as well, who wants to play a 10hr campaign with 3 lives? I don't have time to master a game like that.

Now days it's harder to find the time since I have a family, but I think gaming has changed for the better. This past gen is what brought me back to console gaming again. I remember thinking when I got my xbox 360 in 2006, this is great. A well integrated online system on a console and the co-op experience in games like Rainbow Six and Gears was great. Much better experience than what I saw on the PS2. Sure the PS2 had good games, but I just got bored with console gaming during that gen. It hasn't all been roses as now we sometimes get day one DLC, glitchy games at launch (like GTA V online), and online passes, but some of those issues can be avoided if you wait for reviews & patches, and the good has far outweighed the bad, IMO.

[Derb]

Played Star Ocean for first time on PS3.

After the 15min install I was presented with the main menu. I selected new game, then normal difficulty.

This game has a time counter.

Let's see I spent 3 minutes with tutorial, moved my character to one area then waited for 35 minute cutscene. Then had to move character to talk to another.. Another 10 minute cutscene.

[Mobe1969]

Yeah I remember what games used to be like. Crap. I grew up in the 70s. We got a pong console. I had various mindless handheld led (Tron, which I still have packed away somehow) and LCD games. Could never afford the early consoles, but played at friends houses. After I got a job, I had various Sega consoles. Then, I saw an advertisement on TV for Resident Evil 2. My first PlayStation. That is when games actually started getting good IMHO.

I don't have rose colored retro gaming glasses... My stomach turns thinking of playing any of those simplistic midi sounded pre PlayStation games...

[jsteinhauer]

Originally Posted by Mobe1969

Yeah I remember what games used to be like. Crap. I grew up in the 70s. We got a pong console. I had various mindless handheld led (Tron, which I still have packed away somehow) and LCD games. Could never afford the early consoles, but played at friends houses. After I got a job, I had various Sega consoles. Then, I saw an advertisement on TV for Resident Evil 2. My first PlayStation. That is when games actually started getting good IMHO.

I don't have rose colored retro gaming glasses... My stomach turns thinking of playing any of those simplistic midi sounded pre PlayStation games...

LCD games were awesome in comparison. I had loads of fun, pre LCD days, with handheld Mattell football consisting of three rows of red LED dashes. The original D-pad. You could even throw a pass with that game. Before that, if you wanted a game that used electricity, you had football or baseball on a vibrating steel platter. Not that admittedly sucked.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

Because fewer and fewer games are supporting local multiplayer. I had a couple of friends over the night I got my PS4 to check it out with me. Imagine how much more fun we would have had if Killzone Shadowfall had actually supported split screen?

I am not an FPS fan so Killzone (with or without split screen) would not have been that much fun) , but this weekend I did play Knack with my Nephew. Obviously what games people choose is what will determine what features future games will have.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

The inherent problem with that is there really is nothing social about Online social gaming. Unless you consider a bunch of nameless, faceless people under the protection of anonymity shouting profanity and insults at one another.

agree

Yeah I do have actual real friends on my friends list and we do game online sometimes, but it really isn't the same.

agree and I would rather spend real time with those real friends instead of a tenuous on-line connection.

Like I said before, fewer and fewer titles are supporting localized multiplayer options so what choice do we have?

buy and play those titles if it is important to you

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

But see, I guess that's my issue with the whole thing. How do developers KNOW there's no demand for it? How do they quantify that demand or lack there of? Did they conduct a poll? No I think a lot of it is assumption on their part. Of course most gamer's are internet connected now and of course most of them play online. However that doesn't mean you suddenly abandon a still perfectly good feature in the wake of it. It's like the "chicken before the egg" syndrome. Are fewer gamers doing localized multiplayer gaming because there's no interest or simply because fewer developers are bothering with it?

how do they know?

I picked up Marvel Legos and Knack for the simple fact that it supports this and my son and I can play them.

that. People vote with their wallets. If something costs money (and everything added costs money) and the game developer thinks "they will buy it anyways" and people do buy it, it is easier next time to decide "who cares, let's drop it and save some $".

[PrestigeWorldwide]

I would like most shooters to have LAN options since I've had friends bring over consoles so we can play in the same room and have our own screen. From what I've read, splitscreen is harder to implement, but you'd link adding LAN support wouldn't be much added cost at all. This past gen was kinda weird how some games supported LAN and some didn't. Resident Evil 5 is a good example. The xbox 360 version has a LAN option, yet the PS3 version doesn't.

[Harlock415]

I sooo miss cheat codes Now with trophy's, designers aren't putting in cheats, I guess. But they were fun at the time.

[jsteinhauer]

There are a few cheats around, but they usually disable trophies.

[Harlock415]

Only one I've done is for Arkham City to get all the Bat costumes.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by jsteinhauer

I think a multinational, multibillion dollar corporation has a marketing department that conducts polls and other types of research. Or they contract with a multinational, multibillion dollar market research corporation to do that work for them. And they know exactly which PS3 owners played Rage, RE, Borderlands, Beyond: Two Souls, etc. in local coop, because most play while connected and have agreed to share such data with Sony and its partners.

Oh you mean multinational, multi billion dollar corporations like Microsoft? A company who so severely miscalculated the gaming market and what gamers were willing to accept that the horrible decisions they made for the Xbox One and the terrible PR that followed may very well cost them this generation? Or how about a company like Sony who had the audacity to launch a 600.00 console and just expected gamers to suck it up and buy it anyway?

I don't care how much money a company has, that doesn't make them impervious to misreading and misunderstanding the market and what gamers want.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

how do they know?


that. People vote with their wallets. If something costs money (and everything added costs money) and the game developer thinks "they will buy it anyways" and people do buy it, it is easier next time to decide "who cares, let's drop it and save some $".

Again, at what point did developers decide that gamers didn't want localized multiplayer options anymore? Did they actually take the time to research and see if gamers truly didn't want it anymore or did they just say "hey, we'll include online only, not fool with split screen or LAN support, and people will buy it anyway because what choice do they have?"

[Derb]

Originally Posted by jsteinhauer

There are a few cheats around, but they usually disable trophies.

Speaking of how games used to be... Ditch Trophies & Achievements!

Almost as bad as cheating is playing the game the way it's not intended.

Thing about using cheats in the past was only fun after you finished the game without them. They soo diminished the games replay value fast afterwards.

[jsteinhauer]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

I don't care how much money a company has, that doesn't make them impervious to misreading and misunderstanding the market and what gamers want.

I'll take that. I think MS would have been fine; they need to replace their spin doctors, not their market researchers. Anyway, there was a vocal public protest against Xbone at that time. If there is a huge demand for local co-op gaming, where is the backlash against the publishers? It's your comparison, not mine.

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

Again, at what point did developers decide that gamers didn't want localized multiplayer options anymore? Did they actually take the time to research and see if gamers truly didn't want it anymore or did they just say "hey, we'll include online only, not fool with split screen or LAN support, and people will buy it anyway because what choice do they have?"

Maybe people buy it anyway, because 99.5% of them don't care about split screens and LAN gaming. Can you not accept that you are the outlier?

Originally Posted by Derb

Speaking of how games used to be... Ditch Trophies & Achievements!

Almost as bad as cheating is playing the game the way it's not intended.

Thing about using cheats in the past was only fun after you finished the game without them. They soo diminished the games replay value fast afterwards.

I have mixed feelings about trophies. I get more out of my games for my money, because of them. When a trophie list is well constructed, it becomes part of the game. A few more challenges within the game to add some interest. There are also a few tough games I might have given up on, if not for the petty reward of a trophie after succeeding. At times they become ridiculous, though. I admit to owning a few where you put a rubberband or weight on your controller to keep something happening for a few hours, like distance travelled or items collected in quantities far exceeding what any reasonable person would accumulated during even fanatical play of a game. The worst trophy ever is in Uncharted. Soften up ten enemies in a row with a single gunshot before finishing them off with a melee kill.

I think the real purpose of trophies is to keep you playing this game longer, instead of the competitor's game, even if it only delays your purchase of the competitor's game, which eats into profit. It also induces digital purchases. There are 100% fanatics who have to play the DLC to get their trophy lists to 100%. There are also those who will buy things that make it easier to earn trophies. It's all profit motive. Occasional trophies are, in effect, practical jokes played by devs on gamers. Let's see what we can get these morons to do, you know.

Cheats that you have to earn, like unlimited ammo in, say, Uncharted or Resident Evil, are indeed fun, after you have beaten the game and are running around trying to earn ridiculous trophies. See above about crazy stupid trophies. It is a way to make the stupid trophies fun.