What's wrong with the industry?
Matthew Murray
giving up Sierra On-Line? Ultima becoming an action/adventure series?
What's going on?
I've been computer gaming for a long time (practically 15 years
now) and I must say that I have never been as shocked or as saddened by
the industry as I am now. Granted, I may still be somewhat locked in the
"old ways" of computer gaming, but, for the most part, I've grown with the
times. I've changed as the industry has changed. I've followed the
trends as far as I could, but it is now becoming far too difficult for me
to support it. It has changed far too much, and not nearly enough for
the better. It's impossible for anyone to believe that the industry would
stay the same forever--change is inevitable. But, with computers entering
the mainstream, I feel it is time that we ask ourselves if we are still
being served by the industry.
For a good number of years now, computer games have been dumbed
down--no longer do you find cerebral affairs of the type that Infocom
created so well. Games no longer have the sense of newness or freshness
that the Sierra "3D animated adventures" had in the early and mid-1980s.
As hard to find is the meticulous attention to detail, and--for lack of a
better word--love that was demonstrated in the Ultima games for so many
years. The computer gaming industry has moved beyond these ideas.
Technology has moved ahead, yet these ideas--the ideas that made so many
of the early games so special to so many people--have been left in the
dust. For those long-time (or well-rounded newer) gamers, when is the
last time you played a game as daring as Infocom's Infidel? Or as
ground-breaking as Sid Meier's (note the name!) Civilization? Or as
honest as Sierra's Hero's Quest I (note the name)?
I firmly believe that the trouble has been caused by the creation
of computer games being taken over by the large corporation, the huge
conglomerate with many interests all over the place, but little interest
in any of them. Computer gaming was never designed to be an industry
like the one it has become--its original purpose has been lost. The
original intent of computer games was to, on the most fundamental level,
entertain people. Games just don't seem to be about that anymore. Now,
they are about making money. What must we do to get the most people
possible to buy this game? One need look no further than one of the
finest series in computer gaming, Ultima, to see how this attitude can
kill not only history but also fan devotion. The latest, and final,
chapter in the saga spanning over 15 years will not be called Ultima IX,
because the creators feel it suggests you need to play the other eight
first. What kind of logic is that? Who is doing the thinking?
The people not doing the thinking are the ones who created the
industry. The ones who forged ahead and broke ground for all of us. They
wanted to know exactly what could be done. They were struggling to create
something. Computer games have lost this. If you feel, as I do, that
computer games these days seem manufactured and without soul, the reason
can only be that they are created by committee, only doing as much as is
necessary to get as many people as possible to buy it. If this means
betraying the fan base that built the series in the first place, or the
ideals on which the series is based--ideals the creators never intended to
get away from--so be it. As long as you make the money, nothing else
matters. Now, to be fair, of course, not everyone at every company is
like this. There are still a few people (Jane Jensen at Sierra or Sid
Meier of Civilization fame) who seem to be creating games with the gamer
predominantly in mind. However, they seem to be clearly the exception
these days, rather than the rule.
Unfortunately for gamers, this is often the attitude in business.
There is very little that can ever be done to change this, but all need
not truly be lost. The first, and most important, step in getting the
industry back to where we want it to be is to put the creation of the
games back where it came from, and back where it truly belongs: In the
hands of the gamers. The games no longer feel as though they are being
created by people that would actually want to play them, and, as a result,
few gamers want to play them. Computer Gaming World (or what's left it),
essentially read a eulogy for adventure games in their September issue.
Do any of us really want the adventure genre to die? Of course not.
However, do we really want it to be populated almost entirely with what
infests it now: Clone after clone of Myst? But, it's what sells. Or, to
be more precise, Myst is what sold. Those games aren't Myst. When they
fail, the companies who made them think people don't want adventure
games. And so it goes, taking the industry along with it.
If you feel strongly about the direction the industry is heading,
and what is being done to your favorite game or series in the name of
money or mass-market identification, I urge all of you to figure out
something--anything--you can do to contribute to fixing the problem. We
don't all have the same capacities, of course, but we are all capable of
doing something. If it means writing a letter (preferrably paper) to your
favorite (or former favorite) company, and telling them what you think, so
be it. If it means voting with your wallet, so be it. If it means
majoring in computer science at college so you can create better games
yourself, so be it! But as long as computer gaming is out of our
hands--as long as we allow the companies to decide what we like, what we
want, which genres will live, and which will die, those of us who feel the
industry is falling apart will continue to watch as it crumbles. If we
can take it back, or, at the very least, make our voices heard, it's
possible to bring the honesty, the commitment, the pioneering spirit, and
even the love back to the industry. These things were all truly here
once--they need not vanish forever. Is there anyone reading this message
that truly wants them to?
If I have stepped on anyone's toes in this message, I apologize.
It is not my intent. Having spent a good portion of my life, and all of
my computer-oriented life, with the computer gaming industry, seeing it in
its current state--which I can only describes as a shambles, hurts me in a
way it is difficult for me to describe. I honestly believe things are out
of hand, and that, as the customers--the people for whom the games are
supposedly being created--if we truly care about the state of the
industry, it is entirely possible, and within our grasp to change things
for the better. It will be a difficult road, without a doubt--we gave up
control over the games, and we won't get it back easily. But if it
matters to you as it matters to me--or if only a fraction as much--it is a
possibility that we should explore and do what we can to fulfill.
Games have in the past, and can again, be more than what we're
currently being exposed to. If you feel this way, please, make your voice
heard. Let's take our industry back again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew A. Murray | Over 180 computer game reviews covering
mmu...@cc.wwu.edu | games from 1979 to the present!
http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray | http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray/Reviews.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hargrove
>giving up Sierra On-Line? Ultima becoming an action/adventure series?
>What's going on?
> Games have in the past, and can again, be more than what we're
>currently being exposed to. If you feel this way, please, make your voice
>heard. Let's take our industry back again.
While your concern is generally valid, there are only two real things
that people can do to change the situation... one, the less common
one, is for those so inclined to learn programming/art/etc and get
together to make something different. But the more general option for
the rest of the world is to vote with your pocketbooks. Writing
letters and such won't change things, only the money will.
Realize though that this largely negative change in the game industry
is largely due to the success of games in the first place, and the
demands of you guys, the consumers, on the games themselves. Think of
the general timeline this way (ignoring the game industry recession
during the early to mid 80's and the like):
- Computer games aren't incredibly common, but they're simple enough
to be created by one or only a couple people. The classics are born.
- The games start getting more popular, and people want more out of
them. They start buying bigger and better machines, so the people
want games that can take advantage of these bigger and better
machines. The games start requiring a bit more manpower and time to
make.
- This trend continues through this day as the budgets required for
developing competitive games skyrocket, due to the increase in
manpower and time. Consumers start demanding things like 3D (since
they have the machines capable of handling it), and this requires not
only more workers but more trained workers, capable of programming
three dimensional engines, animating polygonal models, drawing
realistic textures, designing levels with the skill of an architect,
etc.
- At some point in this process, developers (once the tiny "garage"
teams) no longer have the out-of-pocket cash to afford development.
They need outside funding. Enter big business. Through outside
investment or otherwise, megapublishers are born as middlemen to get
developers' products out to a wide audience. As the audience
increases, and games get more popular, the publishers grow, hence does
the big business aspect of the industry. Very Large Amounts of money
are being spent on developing games... what used to cost nothing but
the expense of a few machines, some disks, and a couple guys' living
expenses... now costs hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.
People don't mind taking risks if it'll only cost them a few bucks.
But when the money gets big, being risky isn't so appealing... hence
games get more dumbed down and generalized to appeal to a hopefully
larger public, in an attempt to counteract the development investment.
That's basically the whole story. The only way this will get remedied
is if A) consumers stop demanding the latest and greatest thing for
their shiny new machines, or B) publishers start coming into so much
cash that they don't mind taking a whole lot more risks than they are
now, or C) developers stop trying to live off of their work and decide
that being poor is better than not making an original game. C will
not happen, as we like to eat (the only developers that fall into C
are college students or other hobbyists who like working on games in
their spare time, but they can't make a game anymore that satisfies
the consumers without A occuring first... the exceptions to this are
very few and far between). A is also quite unlikely to happen anytime
soon, unless technology slows down (and it won't anytime soon). And
for as much money as publishers have, they don't have enough to
support B for more than a couple products at a time, at most.
Whatever the public decides to do, all of these things have to be
taken into account, which leaves very few options that are still
realistic.
--
Chris Hargrove
Programmer, 3DRealms Entertainment
chr...@3drealms.com
http://www.3drealms.com
Matthew Murray
> Whatever the public decides to do, all of these things have to be
> taken into account, which leaves very few options that are still
> realistic.
You're right, of course. What really needs to happen, if you ask
me, is that the computer game-buying public has to demand better >games<,
not better technology. Hopefully, someday soon, we'll see a move toward
this, as we saw in Hollywood just a couple of years ago when independent
films were all the rage. You're right in that it's not very likely to
happen soon, but I think it can happen, as long as people keep in mind
what they really >want< from computer games. If they truly DO want
BETTER, then, eventually, the companies will have no choice to provide it.
Your message, as outlined, is 100% correct of course, but I believe there
has to be a way for the industry to get back on track. It just needs to
be discovered before there's nothing left to salvage.
DrummGuy13
get plummeted by big companies (Microsoft, Sony, etc..).
However, we are now at a critical point. Ccomputer games are more popular
than ever, but we may witness a market crash if developers aren't smart and
innovative. Just as the 16-bit era was crushed under the weight of a
thousasand Sonic-clones, we the PC could be flattened by the onslaught of Quake
and C&C clones. What are the most anticipated games right now? Quake 3? Sin?
Tiberian Sun? Force Commander? I rest my case. (Personally, I can't wait to
get my hands on Fallout 2).
And of course, let's not forget buggy products and ridiculous system reqs. I
know this has caused my game purchasing rate to take a severe dip.
I don't have many solutions, sadly. I really think we should have more RPG's
and strategy games. I want more strategy games that can appeal to everyone,
like X-Com. Same goes for RPG's. We need people who can think different and
add something new. Every RPG doesn't have to take place in medival times and
every strategy game doesn't have to take place during WW2 on a hex grid.
----> Trent
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
uttered:
> I firmly believe that the trouble has been caused by the creation
>of computer games being taken over by the large corporation, the huge
>conglomerate with many interests all over the place, but little interest
>in any of them.
Piranha said it first. :-)
Back in the early-to-mid eighties, in the Land of Text-Based
Adventures, was a company that sold self-made games by mail order;
they used to run a series of ads in British magazine "Micro
Adventurer" where they (through humourous comics) attacked the
wholesale software resellers for squishing the minor software houses.
And back then, there were several hundred of them.
Of course, the entire text-based adventure genre died a slow death -
partly through the Fall of Infocom (into the hands of Activision, that
is), and the fold-up of the other big players (Level 9 - at least on
this side of the Pond - and Scott Adams - not the Dilbert one), and
the arrival of Sierra and Lucasarts' graphical adventures.
So: What you say is true, but it's just history repeating itself. You
could see gomputer games had become big entertainment business when
the Street Fighter (and, lo, it did suck) and Super Mario Brothers
movies were made...
But if AH manages to create a computer ASL, the world will be saved.
:-)
--
"I had to upgrade the memory of my 8088 from to 256K to 640K just to play [Demon's Winter]."
- gmad...@usa.net
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen http://www.pvv.org/%7etoriver/
Mark Asher
>As the video/computer game industry made more and more money, it was bound to
>get plummeted by big companies (Microsoft, Sony, etc..).
>
> However, we are now at a critical point. Ccomputer games are more popular
>than ever, but we may witness a market crash if developers aren't smart and
>innovative. Just as the 16-bit era was crushed under the weight of a
>thousasand Sonic-clones, we the PC could be flattened by the onslaught of Quake
>and C&C clones. What are the most anticipated games right now? Quake 3? Sin?
> Tiberian Sun? Force Commander? I rest my case. (Personally, I can't wait to
>get my hands on Fallout 2).
Chaos Gate, Baldur's Gate, Alpha Centauri, Railroad Tycoon 2 -- there
are plenty of exceptions that look interesting to me. <shrug>
If games are more popular than ever, I don't forsee a crash coming. I
forsee some consolidation in the marketplace. I think some companies
are going to go under, especially some of these online gaming ventures
like TEN, MPlayer, and Engage.
Companies are going to have to be smart and figure out where their
niche is. Talonsoft is a good example of this. They do historical
military games, and they likely know that a given title is never going
to be a best seller. But if they contain costs properly and deliver a
certain level of quality, they can bank on making their profit. And
they can even take a chance now and then on a game that apes a popular
genre and might be a big hit, like Tribal Rage tried to be, by going
outside of what they normally do. The key is that they probably didn't
spend $2 million developing Tribal Rage.
There's a market for turn-based games, but it just may be a 50,000
unit market. So turn-based gamers may just have to understand that
they aren't going to get all the bells and whistles that the RTS and
FPS market gets since the development costs for turn-based games need
to be minimized.
All that's really happened is that the market grew and a lot of people
looked at it as a place to make a quick buck. So we got clueless
startups like Any River and Rocket Science who were flush with venture
capital but had no idea of what kind of games the marketplace wanted.
Thus we get A Fork in the Tail and Cadillacs and Dinosaurs (or
whatever that was called). So the Invisible Hand of the Marketplace
then happily bitch-slaps these clueless companies and they become
roadkill and Blizzard and Firaxis and others who understand what
gaming is all about survive. Seems fit and proper to me.
>And of course, let's not forget buggy products and ridiculous system reqs. I
>know this has caused my game purchasing rate to take a severe dip.
I'm not sure that this is all that different from the DOS days. I
remember a lot of pain and suffering with DOS games. Frankly, most
strategy titles can be played on machines that were state-of-the-art
two years ago. There are a few exceptions, but not too many. It's the
FPS games and Flight Sims that rip the requirements envelope into
little pieces.
>I don't have many solutions, sadly. I really think we should have more RPG's
>and strategy games. I want more strategy games that can appeal to everyone,
>like X-Com. Same goes for RPG's. We need people who can think different and
>add something new. Every RPG doesn't have to take place in medival times and
>every strategy game doesn't have to take place during WW2 on a hex grid.
I agree about the RPGs, but I wonder how MM6 sales compare to Fallout
sales? I think MM6 has probably dwarfed Fallout in sales. The
marketplace speaks, and game companies listen.
Mark Asher
Savoldi
isn't there anymore. The innovators got old and the profit-makers grew
bold. It's all about the bucks and probably always was, but they sure as
hell are a lot more obvious about it than they used to be.
Mark Asher
<rmie...@injersey.infi.net> wrote:
>Amen. Computer games, the music industry, same story. The magic just
>isn't there anymore. The innovators got old and the profit-makers grew
>bold. It's all about the bucks and probably always was, but they sure as
>hell are a lot more obvious about it than they used to be.
Part of it is just getting older and becoming jaded I think. I'm not a
big fan of pop music anymore, but I really don't think the pop music
of my day was any better than the stuff I hear today. I've just
outgrown it. Music isn't as important to me now.
If you think about it, the good old days of gaming are really just the
memories of selected classic titles. There were lots of bad games
released also, but we don't factor in our appraisal of the past,
simply because we forget about them.
Mark Asher
Dav Vandenbroucke
[a lot of stuff which I'm not going to quote back at you.]
I don't disagree with a lot of what you said. The fundamental
contradiction is that "the companies" want to make money rather than
produce great games. How can they do that? Because people keep
buying the games even though they're not great. So, either people are
generally stupid, buying what they don't want and not learning from
experience, or there are enough people out there who are getting their
money's worth. I think the second possibility is more likely. I
don't know who they are, but the mass of game players seem to like
(and buy) the sorts of stuff the game companies are churning out. The
best we can hope for is that a few niche companies (SSG, for example)
can produce good games and sell them in enough volume to stay in
business. Other than that, gamers who want good quality must be more
discriminating in what they buy, to avoid encouraging the shlock
merchants.
Dav Vandenbroucke
dav_and_france...@compuserve.com
Brant
>giving up Sierra On-Line? Ultima becoming an action/adventure series?
>What's going on?
I don't get it....
> For a good number of years now, computer games have been dumbed
>down--no longer do you find cerebral affairs of the type that Infocom
>created so well. Games no longer have the sense of newness or freshness
>that the Sierra "3D animated adventures" had in the early and mid-1980s.
>As hard to find is the meticulous attention to detail, and--for lack of a
>better word--love that was demonstrated in the Ultima games for so many
>years.
Ok, I think I see a problem here......the cerebral affairs of Infocom
text-adventures were incredible in their day.....but really, today? Today
who wants to sit there and type key commands hoping to get the correct
parser to advance to the next "scene". I admit, they were entertaining as
Text-Only adventures...mainly because they, like reading a good book, took
place 100% in your mind. But I doubt anyone would want to sit through such
a game today.........I certainly wouldn't.
As for games not having the newness or freshness as the 3D games of the
early 80's.....like the first Kings Quest....well, lets face it....the
computer gaming industry has "Grown Up". Going from CGA to VGA was a
jaw-dropping experience. Going from 16bit to 32bit color is more like "yeah
great whatever".
Its the same thing with gaming now......I imagine we won't see a whole "new"
jaw dropping experience come along until we can all wear high-quality
Virtual Reality units while sitting on our couches..........
>of computer games being taken over by the large corporation, the huge
>conglomerate with many interests all over the place, but little interest
>in any of them. Computer gaming was never designed to be an industry
>like the one it has become--its original purpose has been lost. The
I don't really agree here.......I think that the big-budgets of large
companies have helped video games progress by leaps and bounds, although
there is definately a problem with some game companies (ID comes to mind)
who really don't "create" games...they create 3D landscapes that make people
want to upgrade their computers so that the 3D landscapes move
smoothly......this is a problem, to be sure.
Of course, you know, our standards are much higher than they were 10 or 15
years ago too....
>chapter in the saga spanning over 15 years will not be called Ultima IX,
>because the creators feel it suggests you need to play the other eight
>first. What kind of logic is that? Who is doing the thinking?
Well, I was one of those people who prayed for the demise of the
"Adventure/RPG game" the way the Ultimas and other games had done.
Why? because they began to get ridiculously convoluted, so that only the
handfull of core-RPGers could ever really enjoy them.......
I mean, they became games that were simply impossible to complete without
the purchase of the $20 hintbook......"Take the clove of garlic to the great
tower in whatevertown, then the door will open to the crystal cathedral near
the gypsy village.." and crap like that. Things that defied common sense,
and thusly, made the games nothing but frustrating for most players.
I MUST admit, however, that a good old fashioned RPG would be a nice thing
to have nowadays, since nobodys really done it "right" yet...
>Meier of Civilization fame) who seem to be creating games with the gamer
>predominantly in mind. However, they seem to be clearly the exception
>these days, rather than the rule.
I don't think this has anyting to do with large corporations....you just
picked up a few visionaries who had talent, there are many others in the
industry, and many of them are working for huge "corporate giants".
I just feel there is too much emphasis these days on getting games "Out the
door in time for xmas"......
>Do any of us really want the adventure genre to die? Of course not.
Well...if the plots were as sad and re-hashed as they had been for some
time, and then the storylines littered with endless sub-quests that made no
real sense.......
>infests it now: Clone after clone of Myst? But, it's what sells. Or, to
>be more precise, Myst is what sold. Those games aren't Myst.
Even I can't understand Myst or Riven or "Shoot The Deer".....I dunno what
the hell non-gamers see in those games.....
> Games have in the past, and can again, be more than what we're
>currently being exposed to. If you feel this way, please, make your voice
>heard. Let's take our industry back again.
Well, I hope you find your adventure game anyhow....
Brant
personally, I'm hooked on 1st person shooters lately....I want Half-Life!
Dave Glue
Mark Asher wrote in message
<35c4d151....@gatekeeper.impacttech.com>...
>Part of it is just getting older and becoming jaded I think. I'm not a
>big fan of pop music anymore, but I really don't think the pop music
>of my day was any better than the stuff I hear today. I've just
>outgrown it. Music isn't as important to me now.
>
>If you think about it, the good old days of gaming are really just the
>memories of selected classic titles. There were lots of bad games
>released also, but we don't factor in our appraisal of the past,
>simply because we forget about them.
I agree with you, but I also agree with the post that started this thread.
There are generally far less cerebral-oriented games these days, and far
more clones. However, I'm also more cynical because I'm well, more cynical.
I've been there/done that, and as I get older it simply takes more to draw
my attention to a game. The "good old days" are always better in your
memory.
Jeff Vitous
>>Amen. Computer games, the music industry, same story. The magic just
>>isn't there anymore. The innovators got old and the profit-makers grew
>>bold. It's all about the bucks and probably always was, but they sure as
>>hell are a lot more obvious about it than they used to be.
>
>Part of it is just getting older and becoming jaded I think. I'm not a
>big fan of pop music anymore, but I really don't think the pop music
>of my day was any better than the stuff I hear today. I've just
>outgrown it. Music isn't as important to me now.
Its mostly a function of time, I think. When we were younger, we could
spend hours a day loafing at the beach playing our favorite tunes over and
over. We got enough replay value from our music purchases to justify the
cost. Now a days, I have CDs and movies still in their shrink wrap...a year
or more after I bought them! So now I tend to stick with more timeless
purchases...classical and opera, things that haven't changed in centuries so
they won't get stale on my shelves <g>.
>If you think about it, the good old days of gaming are really just the
>memories of selected classic titles. There were lots of bad games
>released also, but we don't factor in our appraisal of the past,
>simply because we forget about them.
To which I offer such gems as UMS II, MegaTraveller, and anything from
Avalon Hill's first foray into computer games (pre-Kingmaker days). There
are literally hordes more, I was fortunate not to have lots of $$$ in those
days, so I usually didn't encourage poor game design by buying half-assed
titles. I still don't, really, but now I can afford lapses in common sense,
and occasionally will get caught throwing $$$ away on poorly executed titles
such as 3R.
As we get older (and perhaps more jaded), it becomes more difficult for a
title to ignite the passion we recall from certain games of the past. I
remember being completely immersed in the Gold Box games to the point which
I couldn't wait to return from a vacation to finish one of them. I was so
addicted to the original MOO that I couldn't wait to get rid of a tiresome
New Years Eve date just so I could go home and play a few turns before going
to bed. I called a friend of mine daily to discuss various strategies for
Panzer General scenarios.
Intellectually, TOAW is far more satisfying and will definitely outlive
Panzer General. While its as close as anything of late has been to
reigniting the passion, it still isn't the same. Civ 2 was better than Civ
1, MOO2 than MOO, but the lingering "been there done that" tempered my
enthusiasm for those titles. I'm still looking forward to a game that
generates the old excitement, compels me to stay up way past my bedtime, to
occupy my mind when I should be thinking about my job. I'm starting to
suspect the odds of finding such a game may be similar to the odds I will
once again find a 20 year old nymphomaniac to...well, keep me up past my
bedtime and occupy my mind when I should be thinking about my job...
Jeff Vitous
jvi...@spamthis.wwa.com
"Life is too long not to hold a grudge."
-- Steve Dahl
Robert Perrett
>
> Part of it is just getting older and becoming jaded I think. I'm not a
> big fan of pop music anymore, but I really don't think the pop music
> of my day was any better than the stuff I hear today. I've just
> outgrown it. Music isn't as important to me now.
>
> memories of selected classic titles. There were lots of bad games
> released also, but we don't factor in our appraisal of the past,
> simply because we forget about them.
>
Don't tell me good old days. They were bad games back then. It's just that
people forget about them so easily.
Robert Perrett
Oh well.
Just try the Last express.
Matthew Murray
> Don't tell me good old days. They were bad games back then. It's just that
> people forget about them so easily.
There were good games then, and there were bad games then, just as
there are good games and bad games now. But I believe that the good games
back then were, comparatively, better than the good games now, and that,
at the very least, they displayed a magic and love that is very difficult
to find in games these days. Even bad games from the earliest years of
computer gaming were more magical than most of what I see littering the
shelves today.
jep
design a complete computer game these days. In the old days, the graphics
and dynamics were severely limited by the machines. Now the machines are
much more capable, so there is much more work to do.
I'm hoping for a paradigm shift, where some companies devote themselves to
developing tools (graphics engines, etc.) and sell those tools to game
developers. (Like what I think happened with Unreal.) At the present time,
it is difficult to design games for a dedicated niche market because the
development costs are huge. So most companies are tempted to go for the
mass market sales. If an affordable engine existed, one which could be sued
in many games, the marginal costs of developing a niche product would
decrease.
Another big problem is distribution. There are only a few direct software
sales outlets, and they only want mass market products. The current outlets
charge distributors for shelf space so they can keep prices low. But this
makes it hard for the niche product.
The computer gaming business seems to be headed down the road of the movie
business (I'm referring to the marketing and distibution methods, not FMV or
technology) so we can hope for the emergence minor publishers.
Just my opinion.
jep
Robert Perrett
Robert Perrett
>
>
> There were good games then, and there were bad games then, just as
> there are good games and bad games now. But I believe that the good games
> back then were, comparatively, better than the good games now, and that,
> at the very least, they displayed a magic and love that is very difficult
> to find in games these days. Even bad games from the earliest years of
> computer gaming were more magical than most of what I see littering the
> shelves today.
>
Why are you so disapoint? The magic seems to have been lost. You will find it. I
know you will. It is hard too. Should I go buy Infocom masterpices of Text
adventure. I have been thinking about it. I don't know. I play games since 7 years
ago and that was KQ5. Yuck. I replay that and that is awful. So, is Laura Bow 2.
That is really not that great. I thought these games were good when I first play
them. Then I replay them and can't beilve. I like THAT. Most games seem junky. I
wonder if I would have found magic in those Infocom games. It could be that you are
Jaded. We all get that way. I don't understand since I have never play Infocom's
games. What games that you have found Matthew that is good that have been relased
recently?
Stuart Southerland
>>A) consumers stop demanding the latest and greatest thing for
>>their shiny new machines
>>B) publishers start coming into so much
>>cash that they don't mind taking a whole lot more risks than they are
>>now
>>C) developers stop trying to live off of their work and decide
>>that being poor is better than not making an original game.
>
> All very well said and thank you. My greatest interest on the
I also love adventures. Only real reason that I play computer games.
The idea of "interactive" story telling facinates me. I love watching
the idea develope from the original test adventures to the 6 million
dollar "Last Express."
I compare myself to the movie lovers that would rather see 10 low
budget well-scripted movies than one block buster special effects
waste like "Starship Troopers."
But, well, I DID go see Starship Troopers, and although I do play an
ocassional text adventure, I do love the bells and whistles of games
like Black Dahlia. I dunno. With the Last Express losing millions, I
fear that the puplishers will be unwilling to take a chance on
adventures again. It has been a long time since Myst... I do hope that
this next crop of high budget adventures will make $.
There is a reason why there are more text adventures online than ever
before...
Stuart Southerland
stus...@ionet.net
Arnaldo Horta
This is a good point. However, I think that games like HOMM2 prove that
turn based games can do well.
The great problem is that many of us are used to the times when computer
gaming was a hobby enjoyed by a few computer geeks (I am definitely
including
myself in that number, as my wife is so apt to tell me), so companies
were
used to sales in the 50,000 range. Now there is a large market and they
want to cater to that market.
I do believe that certain types of games will become less popular in the
future,
but the hobby itself will not die.
Also, I would like to make one point...in the last year or so, I have
seen a number of turn based games and most of them have been pretty
good.
In the past, there were a lot more, but most of them were drek. In the
turn based arena, the game has to be good to make money. In RTS's and
first person action catagories, the companies seem to still feel that
they can get away with releasing crappy games and let the large number
of fans save them...we just have to prove them wrong....
Arnaldo Horta
remove the nowayspam- to reply
CFoster885
>As we get older (and perhaps more jaded), it becomes more difficult for a
>title to ignite the passion we recall from certain games of the past. I
>remember being completely immersed in the Gold Box games to the point which
>I couldn't wait to return from a vacation to finish one of them. I was so
>addicted to the original MOO that I couldn't wait to get rid of a tiresome
>New Years Eve date just so I could go home and play a few turns before going
>to bed. I called a friend of mine daily to discuss various strategies for
>Panzer General scenarios.
I know this is pathetic but back when Privateer was the big thing once a couple
of people were at my friends house and we decided we MUST beat the game last
night. We took shifts (one person flies, the others eat, sleep, watch TV, go
somewhere) now THATS pathetic.
--
Casey Foster.
***STOP SPAM****
Learn how at: http://www.cauce.org/
Joe Castle
[snip]
I still don't, really, but now I can afford lapses in common sense,
>and occasionally will get caught throwing $$$ away on poorly executed
titles
>such as 3R.
This is a majority of the problem today; buyers being indiscriminate with
their money. Honestly, there are so many resources to take advantage of
today, *especially* when it comes to buying computer games. Think back 6
years, to when there was hardly a world wide web, or even newsgroups to the
extent we have today. You made a purchase either through the word of mouth
recommendation of a friend, or simply by browsing the shelves and finding
something that 'looked cool'. I remember playing The Bard's Tale back in
the late 80's. I was lucky if anyone else in my neighborhood even *had* a
computer let alone played games, and then even had the same game. (Anyone
remember Rescue Raider's for the Apple? :) There really wasn't anything to
go on besides the reputation of the few established companies (Interplay,
Sierra, Origin).
The point here is that today we have countless ways to research the games
coming out. There are numerous publications dedicated to games, and then
scores of websites plus newsgroups also dedicated to discussing games with
up to the minute information. I'm not sure what the exact numbers are, but
its easy to see that more and more companies are trying to cash in on the
gaming craze. We haven't even seen the 'worst' of it yet, as statistically
the majority of the population still doesn't own PCs. Thankfully, there is
a core group of companies who have a sparkling track record for putting out
great games, IMHO (ID, Blizzard..) plus many more with mainly great track
records...(Origin comes to mind...:) ). If the gaming community would just
take the extra time to sort the shit from the shinola, we might see the
flash-in-the-pan, cash in companies head out the door that much quicker
while strongly discouraging slicksters from thinking they can take a pile of
crap, wrap it in a nice package and sneak it on the shelves. As long as
there is still a chance to put a worthless hack on the shelves and make a
profit, we won't even make a dent in the trend of the good vs. worthless
games ratio.
-Joe
*remove XYZ to email me*
DVS Lurker
Savoldi wrote in message <35C4CABB...@injersey.infi.net>...
>Amen. Computer games, the music industry, same story. The magic just
>isn't there anymore. The innovators got old and the profit-makers grew
>bold. It's all about the bucks and probably always was, but they sure as
>hell are a lot more obvious about it than they used to be.
>
This isn't true. You've just finally grown old. At this point of time so
many computer games are released at the same time. You've got a much bigger
choice. There are still games which will become classics, like Diablo,
Quake, Starcraft, C&C series, Duke3D, Blade Runner.....etc. There are still
many games here that will come into the classics category. Heck in the old
days it used to take forever for new games to come out. Probably because
there were less developers in those days.
The problem is we all have been 'exposed' too much as they say. In the old
days when I used to get a game for example civilization, I used to stick to
it and play for about 8 months or maybe even more, and now when I get
civilization 2 , I play it for only 2 months and then I am thirsty for more!
;-) Present day games leave that thirst a lot.
Joe Castle
Matthew Murray wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, Robert Perrett wrote:
>
>> Don't tell me good old days. They were bad games back then. It's just
that
>> people forget about them so easily.
>
>there are good games and bad games now. But I believe that the good games
>back then were, comparatively, better than the good games now, and that,
>at the very least, they displayed a magic and love that is very difficult
>to find in games these days.
I don't agree totally. Look back at the games we played 10 years ago. The
fact is, they were very basic to say the least. I'll always hold a special
place in my heart for The Bard's Tale, yet it amazes me how simple and
shallow of a game it really was. NPC interaction was limited to 'buy / sell
/ identify', and there was an absolute minimum to world/game plot beyond
what you saw in the little view window or what was in the manual. Hell...I
was giddy beyond belief when I found a 4 word message scrawled on a wall. I
realize now that a majority of the world had to be brought to life by the
players' imagination..something lost in a world of games today where more
and more of the 'holes' are being filled by ever increasingly life like
graphics and game engines.
I think alot of it does indeed come down to becoming Jaded. After playing
Wolfenstein 3D, then Doom, then on to Quake, I'm finding that new technology
impresses you less and less because in fact you expect more and more. Game
designers have it much worse off, IMHO, now compared to the pioneers of the
industry, where just about any idea was a new and unseen one. Then again,
think of all the young gamers who weren't around to see any of the
'classics'. Quake will be to them what the original Beyond Castle
Wolfenstein or Rescue Raiders was to us. (I can hardly grasp the
thought...heh).
Joe Castle
[snip]
>
>Why are you so disapoint? The magic seems to have been lost. You will find
it. I
>know you will. It is hard too. Should I go buy Infocom masterpices of Text
>adventure. I have been thinking about it. I don't know. I play games since
7 years
>ago and that was KQ5. Yuck. I replay that and that is awful. So, is Laura
Bow 2.
I don't think anyone could put it any better. Those games were part of the
'New Frontier' of that time. They just would not compare to what we have
today, but it doesn't matter because we loved them _at the time_, and thats
all that matters. You grow up and so do your tastes and expectations.
There are very few (I might be hard pressed to name even one) games from 10
years ago that I would still enjoy enough to sit down and play them through
again. I'm not saying that technology makes a game...there are plenty of
misguided games sitting on the shelf at your local EB as I type. For many
of the truly veteran gamers (those of us who owned an Atari 2600), it just
takes more and more to reach that same level of gaming pleasure. Call me
crazy, but playing 'Hero' on my Atari 2600 just doesn't hold the same appeal
it did 12 years ago.
David Adrien Tanguay
> On 2 Aug 1998, Chris Hargrove wrote:
> > Whatever the public decides to do, all of these things have to be
> > taken into account, which leaves very few options that are still
> > realistic.
>
> You're right, of course. What really needs to happen, if you ask
> me, is that the computer game-buying public has to demand better >games<,
> not better technology. Hopefully, someday soon, we'll see a move toward
> this, as we saw in Hollywood just a couple of years ago when independent
> films were all the rage.
Chris beat me to the post (roughly: big capital demands of the new high
tech games leads to conservative games), but I think there is a hope
for change.
First, rather than complain to the companies about their games, complain
to the review magazines about their reviews. Even in adventure reviews,
the emphasis is largely on the technology of the game, instead of the
actual content. Reviewers routinely lambaste a game if it doesn't push
the technological envelope. E.g., see almost any Riven review. Even
Zork GI got a few raspberries because it didn't have any big engine
improvements over Nemesis.
A second hope is to provide a low budget channel from game makers to
game players. It costs a lot of money to put a game on the shelf, not
for production, just for the shelf space. If you're paying $50 for a
game, you expect a big budget blockbuster. If you could get games in a
bookstore-like environment, or like a record store, the games could be
sold cheaper, say $10-$15, since there would be a much smaller stocking
overhead. This provides a channel for low budget "independent" games.
In the longer run, I think the situation will sort itself out. Some
other posters have talked about no limit to the technology increase,
but I disagree. Hardware may get better, but we're already approaching
the limits of human perception. Fast 3D on a 21 inch monitor, 1280x1024,
24 bit colour, with surround sound -- until virtual reality stuff kicks
in, you don't need more, and these specs are not far off. Game
technology will soon be hitting the human limit, at least with the
current monitor+speakers based configuration. This also means less
obsolescence, so the Citizen Kane of games can still profitably
occupy retail shelf space many years after production.
The market is still growing, too. A big budget game may cost several
millions to make and promote, but this is peanuts compared to even a
small film. With a bigger market, the big hits have a bigger profit
margin, leaving more money to pay for the riskier endeavours. One big
hit can pay for many misses.
Another change will be the experience of the market -- the game players.
Today, only a small percentage of players have been playing for more
than 10 years (maybe even 5). New game players are likely more impressed
by all the eye&ear candy. Once they've become jaded to the gloss, they'll
appreciate more creative, artistic substance. Eventually, the older,
more experienced, less adrenaline addicted demographic will be a large
enough percentage of the market to support games targetted for it.
The alternative is for the industry to go the way of comic books, and
I don't think anybody on either side of the cash register wants that.
--
David Tanguay d...@Thinkage.on.ca http://www.thinkage.on.ca/~dat/
Thinkage, Ltd. Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.24N 80.29W]
Martin Baines
Susan wrote in message <35c58d6d...@news.earthlink.net>...
<snip>
> All very well said and thank you. My greatest interest on the
>and action and shooting and tracking them on the same chart is
>ridiculous to do I think because they get buried by everything more
>popular. Since, IMO, a great computer adventure does not demand any
>more of technology then a great book adventure I would hope enough
>people would continue to be interested in the genre that developers
>would consider spending less with the technology and concentrate more
>on the story. The story will drive Adventure more then technology
>will, but everyone needs to realize this. I don't think this has
>settled down yet. But it is true - if you can severe yourself from
>the technology and find an interesting story you can get a lot of
>entertainment value and spend very little money in comparison writing
>a test adventure in this day.
>
> So the adventure genre will never die out. If nothing else many
>more people will just return to books - unlike action, strategy, and
>shooting which can only exist on the computer - or in real life. :)
Maybe. I am not sure book based adventures are exactly the same
experience as computer adventures. If they were, why do I sometimes
put down a book and play an adventure?
> Because a developer may see poor sales in developing an adventure
>game it may not employ expensive technology in a game but use older
>technology and concentrate more on the story so there will be very
>little reason for me to need and/or use the latest hardware technology
>and speed.
>
> Technology and miss-use of puzzles really hurt Black Dahlia and
>Overseer. There are a lot of lower budget adventures I have played
>over the last three years that I appreciate much more now then these
>block buster types.
Agreed *but* I really liked Black Dahlia!
One thing I think could help generate a "cottage industry" in adventure
games would be some cheap (preferably free) tools that allow one
to create lowish budget adventures quickly and cheaply.
For instance, a standardized game engine coupled with a library of
pictures, objects, backgrounds etc. Think of it like a graphical version
of the text adventure tools like Inform or TADS. What makes graphical
adventures expensive is not really the programming (not a lot harder
than for a text adventure) but the visual production. To be successful
a game design tool would need to attract a large body of artists who
generate the "worlds" that other people could manipulate.
If that happened, it *might* be possible to jump start a cheap(er) games
industry. The Internet makes direct distribution possible, and may allow
a different economics for game distribution. Consider a model where
you download (or even play on line) the start of a game for free. At
some point you get asked whether you want to continue and are given
the option to pay either for all or part of the game. On the production
side, the royalties are split between the games designers and the
scene/object designers e.g. if I designed a set of objects for a game
I would charge a small royality for their use per-game.
Basically, what I have described is a shareware economics world for
game design and distribution. If the infrastructure could be put in place
(a big if), and early on some good games emerged (another big if),
it could work. Now all we need is someone to write a game engine,
some good designers to start a library of scenes/objects and a
good game designer to use them! A tall order, but then someone
did write Linux and all the GNU programs, so it's not impossible.
Martin (hoping I'm not dreaming)
Noppa
>Ok, I think I see a problem here......the cerebral affairs of Infocom
>text-adventures were incredible in their day.....but really, today? Today
>who wants to sit there and type key commands hoping to get the correct
>parser to advance to the next "scene". I admit, they were entertaining as
>Text-Only adventures...mainly because they, like reading a good book, took
>place 100% in your mind. But I doubt anyone would want to sit through such
>a game today.........I certainly wouldn't.
Hear hear. I used to love the first ever text adventure which was
released (was it called 'The Adventure?'), where you were looking for
the lost pirate treasure, and after finding it for the first time a
ghost of a pirate would take it from you and hide it again.
But today... no way! The only reason I loved it was because it was the
first and only adventure game back then. Same for King's Quest 1, it
was unbelievable back when it was released. Same for Ultima 1.
Noppa
>There were good games then, and there were bad games then, just as
>there are good games and bad games now. But I believe that the good games
>back then were, comparatively, better than the good games now, and that,
>at the very least, they displayed a magic and love that is very difficult
Maybe in the early eighties it was much easier to create completely
new genres (ie. fresh ideas and games) simply because the gaming
market was so young? The rate at which new ideas are invented is bound
to become slower over time.
For instance, back in the early eighties when I was a kid, it was very
easy even for me to invent new ideas for games, I just didn't have the
programming knowledge to make many of them happen back then. Nowadays
I find it much harder to invent anything new for computer/video games
simply because 'all' ideas seem to be used already in some other
games.
>to find in games these days. Even bad games from the earliest years of
>computer gaming were more magical than most of what I see littering the
>shelves today.
I think that is only because there was a smaller selection of games
back then. If you have less to choose from, even the worse games seem
better.
Someone said that he has grown out of pop music. Maybe these people
who say games of today don't have the same magic as games 15 years ago
have grown out of computer games too?
In a way that applies to me too. 16 years ago when I was playing with
my first gaming machine, TI-99/4A, ANY game on it, or any other system
for that matter, seemed great and worth playing. Nowadays I'm much
more demanding for the games I play. Only maybe 30% of the games
released today interest me at all, but I don't think that is because
I feel games have become worse.
joelm...@geocities.com
robert...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Why are you so disapoint? The magic seems to have been lost. You will
> find it. I know you will. It is hard too. Should I go buy Infocom
> masterpices of Text adventure. I have been thinking about it. I don't
> know. I play games since 7 years ago and that was KQ5. Yuck. I replay
> that and that is awful. So, is Laura Bow 2. That is really not that
> great. I thought these games were good when I first play them. Then I
> replay them and can't beilve. I like THAT. Most games seem junky. I
> wonder if I would have found magic in those Infocom games. It could be
> that you are Jaded. We all get that way. I don't understand since I
> have never play Infocom's games. What games that you have found Matthew
> that is good that have been relased recently?
Get the Infocom collections and download Winfrotz (an interpiter that
lets you play the text adventures in the Windows enviroment and
gives a few advantages over a straight command line). You can't beat the
value, and if you are jaded than those games will help. Especially since
you get the good with the bad there. Even Infocom had a few bad games
despite making some of the greatest ever and being able to see that can
help.
To put in my two cents, I think that the scale of the market has just
increased about five-hundred fold making it harder to find the gems in
the sea of the standard mediocrity. I also think that the past two years
have been a bit on the weak side, but I am also seeing a renewed emphasis
on gameplay being promoted in the next year's worth of games. It's a
cycle where for a few years people are interested in technology and then
when technology stops being a draw it shifts to gameplay and when the
technology jumps forward the market shifts back to technical emphasis.
The past two years have seen a lot of jumps, but its still the same
cycle that existed when everyone and their cousin was going to get rich
making the newest pong machine.
Joel Mathis
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Jeff Vitous
Joe Castle wrote in message <6q3gq2$pcv$1...@camel19.mindspring.com>...
> This is a majority of the problem today; buyers being indiscriminate with
>their money.
In my case anyway, its a little more complicated than that. I really did
want 3R to be an enjoyable game, I hoped that this my love for the board
game would transcend its problems. I was wrong, the interface was so
atrocious as to make the game very un-fun to play. I really never buy 1 or
2 star games regardless of the hype or subject matter, but I have several
3-star games which I enjoy more than most.
Robert Perrett
> Computer Gaming World taken over by Ziff-Davis? Ken Williams
> giving up Sierra On-Line? Ultima becoming an action/adventure series?
> What's going on?
>
Is it true computer gaming world declared this genre dead?What did it say?
Robert Perrett
I am glad to people are enthusiasm about the industry. I am gald they are not sad.
They happness shines threw.
Robert Perrett
> I am glad people are enthusiasm about the industry. I am glad they are not sad.
> Their happness shines threw.
Steve Motley
I've been playing computer games for 15 years now. I've worked
my way up from an Apple II+ to C-64 to Amiga to PCs.
And I have to agree with what most people have said. Just like
today, there were good and bad games in the past.
The problem is that the resources needed to make a game these
days are fairly large. By the time you take the designers, add
the graphics artist, through in a sound expert, and then all
the marketing hoopla, you have a huge development team. And
that is a lot of payroll for these companies. So, do you take
a chance with something brand new?? Or do you play it safe
and make a clone of a shooter or RTS game?? In most cases,
it is the later. The truly innovative stuff will come from
the startup companies. And then the big companies will clone
the ideas ...
But this is even a bit true in the past also...
I remember a new company named MAXIS, that developed again
about building a city. A game with no end, no high score. Just
a simulated city ... I thought "What a bore", but I was dead
wrong. MAXIS scored big, grew, and now can't make anything but
sims.
How about SimTex?? MOO and MOM are two of the all-time favorites.
And (un)fortunately, the big companies haven't even really been
able to make clones of this game very well.
Can we forget ID?? I was shocked and amazed at Wolf 3D. Then came
DOOM, and the world hasn't been the same since. ID contributed
two HUGE ideas:
1) Multi-player games can work and are desirable.
2) Shareware (try before you buy) is a good marketing scheme.
So what can we look for from Microprose, Sierra, Origin, etc??
More of the same ... They won't be taking many risks with
their payroll. (Ok, Origin gambled and loss with Ultima Online).
The smaller companies will make the new innovations, and then
they will be bought by the mega-companies.
Not much different from the rest of industry, now is it??
Steve
Michael Bain
> For a good number of years now, computer games have been dumbed
>down--no longer do you find cerebral affairs of the type that Infocom
>created so well. Games no longer have the sense of newness or freshness
>that the Sierra "3D animated adventures" had in the early and mid-1980s.
>As hard to find is the meticulous attention to detail, and--for lack of a
>better word--love that was demonstrated in the Ultima games for so many
>years. The computer gaming industry has moved beyond these ideas.
>Technology has moved ahead, yet these ideas--the ideas that made so many
>of the early games so special to so many people--have been left in the
>dust. For those long-time (or well-rounded newer) gamers, when is the
>last time you played a game as daring as Infocom's Infidel? Or as
>ground-breaking as Sid Meier's (note the name!) Civilization? Or as
>honest as Sierra's Hero's Quest I (note the name)?
Well, what game from the eighties had the graphical environment of
UnReal or Quake? Or the multiplayer capabilities? I don't want to
throw around the odd example, but certainly games like Fallout or
Starcraft are worthy evolutions... Right now I think that *tech*
advancement does drive the industry, but I think it is an appropriate
phase which will be reigned in as soon as the market is truly
*glutted*
>The
>original intent of computer games was to, on the most fundamental level,
>entertain people. Games just don't seem to be about that anymore. Now,
>they are about making money. What must we do to get the most people
>possible to buy this game?
That's just untrue. Misleading at best. Games are still being made
to entertain... the industry is just trying to reach the larger
audience of non-computer literate consumers. You seem to be forgetting
that the most popular games of the eighties were twitch & joystick
arcade games... PacMan Asteroids Donkey Kong, etc, etc,etc
Why do games need to be cerebral to be entertaining?
You are talking about games with *substance*...
I recall that I could wipe the floor with computer Chess games of the
80s... now I'm lucky to draw. You would think that would count
for something.
Gerry Quinn
>Amen. Computer games, the music industry, same story. The magic just
>isn't there anymore.
So what happened women, aeroplanes, cars? The magic of my first kiss
/ flight / drive isn't there either.
Maybe for a new player, new games have all the magic we remember from
the old days...
- Gerry
----------------------------------------------------------
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Young
Mark Asher wrote in message
<35c4d151....@gatekeeper.impacttech.com>...
>If you think about it, the good old days of gaming are really just the
>memories of selected classic titles. There were lots of bad games
>released also, but we don't factor in our appraisal of the past,
>simply because we forget about them.
Yes that's true, but there were many more titles to choose from years ago,
from 100,s of software companies. The percentage of great games like films
has always been the same, but if there are more to choose from there are
bound to be more good games overall. Including ones for minority genres. Now
there are a few conglomerates who own nearly all the independant companies,
meaning the amount of original and ground breaking material has diminshed
rapidly, as has the overall amount.
Steve
Steve Young
Dave Glue wrote in message ...
>Mark Asher wrote in message
><35c4d151....@gatekeeper.impacttech.com>...
>>If you think about it, the good old days of gaming are really just the
>>memories of selected classic titles. There were lots of bad games
>>released also, but we don't factor in our appraisal of the past,
>>simply because we forget about them.
>
>There are generally far less cerebral-oriented games these days, and far
>more clones. However, I'm also more cynical because I'm well, more
cynical.
>I've been there/done that, and as I get older it simply takes more to draw
>my attention to a game. The "good old days" are always better in your
>memory.
Like you, I am far more cynical these days and only buy a game when I'm
quite convinced it is going to be any good, by reading reviews, playing
demos, other opinions etc. I don't agree though that there are any more
clones now than there have been any time in the past. The Spectrum fo
instance had 1000's of games released for it, many of the arcade clones or
other copies, but it also had 100's of original games, many of which were
classics. This was true of many of the successful 8 bit machines and 16 bit
ones too. I think the reason it is more recognizable these days, is that far
less games are released now, and the ones that are are nearly all the same
type of Arcade/realtime/3d/strategy hybrid. If you like these games great,
but for the rest of us it's hard luck. I don't think there was ever a golden
age, but there were certainly more games around in the past that were
classics, mainly for this reason.
Steve
rco...@servicesoft.com
I agree.
I think it's a lot like other software companies. Companies gain and
lose their innovative edge, get comfortable etc. etc. Other younger
companies come along with something new and takes their lead. Two or three
years ago, Microprose could do no wrong. Now it's Blizzard and NewWorld
Computing (IMHO).
In article <35C4CABB...@injersey.infi.net>,
Savoldi <rmie...@injersey.infi.net> wrote:
> Amen. Computer games, the music industry, same story. The magic just
> isn't there anymore. The innovators got old and the profit-makers grew
> bold. It's all about the bucks and probably always was, but they sure as
> hell are a lot more obvious about it than they used to be.
>
azog
>years, to when there was hardly a world wide web, or even newsgroups to the
>extent we have today.
Actually, to be pedantic, the newsgroups back before the web were probably
the major resource for games and such. If you're old enough to remember the
Backbone Cabal, you probably know what I referring to. While I came around
about three years after the Great Renaming, there were still major
reprecussions being felt even then...
You got your info from the gamers, not from the marketing approved material
published on a companies web page...
Mr. Natural
Myst is still such a big seller is because it will run on a 486 pc. I don't
know any other games on the shelf that can claim that. The thing that bugs
me the most in the gaming buisness is how quickly the top of the line system
is unable to run a game. For me it is 2-2 1/2 years. I bought a top of the
line P133 2 1/2 years ago. Now it is the minimum requirements to run a game.
And some it won't run at all. I'm thinking of getting a new system around
year end, but how long will that last me? Maybe I should just stick with a
game console, and use the pc for work related duties. My P133 is fine for
all other tasks. I don't entirely agree that it's the public that demands
the latest bells and whistles. I think game designers create what they want
or can, with newer technology always evolving, which is great, but some
thought should be given to the people that own the pc's and who can afford
to buy a new pc every three years? It would be nice if someone still kept in
mind the fact that there is a big market out there for people with P166
machines and lower.
~~~~~
Mr. Natural
Peter Seebach
>Actually, to be pedantic, the newsgroups back before the web were probably
>the major resource for games and such. If you're old enough to remember the
>Backbone Cabal, you probably know what I referring to. While I came around
>about three years after the Great Renaming, there were still major
>reprecussions being felt even then...
Wow. Someone who can plausibly claim to be (at least relatively) an
old-timer, who wasn't around before the Great Renaming.
>You got your info from the gamers, not from the marketing approved material
>published on a companies web page...
I actually really like having both sources. I'm glad to have more chances to
get information from companies, and I wish more of them would do a halfway
decent job of it. I think bullfrog was the worst case; I couldn't do
*ANYTHING* on their page without... Hmm. Shockwave. Then it took me a minute
to figure out how to get past the first page, because the things I thought
looked like buttons weren't, so any time I moved the mouse to click them they
went away.
By contrast, Lucasarts has been very helpful. I've sent email to them, and
gotten timely and helpful responses, and their automated help-desk *has
actually helped me*. Amazing.
-s
--
Copyright '98, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Not speaking for my employer. Questions on C/Unix? Send mail for help.
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
Savoldi
cultural sensibilities. I'm hyper-jaded.
Mark Asher wrote:
>
> On Sun, 02 Aug 1998 16:23:23 -0400, Savoldi
> <rmie...@injersey.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >Amen. Computer games, the music industry, same story. The magic just
> >isn't there anymore. The innovators got old and the profit-makers grew
> >bold. It's all about the bucks and probably always was, but they sure as
> >hell are a lot more obvious about it than they used to be.
>
> Part of it is just getting older and becoming jaded I think. I'm not a
> big fan of pop music anymore, but I really don't think the pop music
> of my day was any better than the stuff I hear today. I've just
> outgrown it. Music isn't as important to me now.
>
> If you think about it, the good old days of gaming are really just the
> memories of selected classic titles. There were lots of bad games
> released also, but we don't factor in our appraisal of the past,
> simply because we forget about them.
>
> Mark Asher
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
wrote:
>On 2 Aug 1998, Chris Hargrove wrote:
>
>> Whatever the public decides to do, all of these things have to be
>> taken into account, which leaves very few options that are still
>> realistic.
>
> You're right, of course. What really needs to happen, if you ask
>me, is that the computer game-buying public has to demand better >games<,
>not better technology. Hopefully, someday soon, we'll see a move toward
>this, as we saw in Hollywood just a couple of years ago when independent
>films were all the rage. You're right in that it's not very likely to
>happen soon, but I think it can happen, as long as people keep in mind
>what they really >want< from computer games. If they truly DO want
>BETTER, then, eventually, the companies will have no choice to provide it.
>Your message, as outlined, is 100% correct of course, but I believe there
>has to be a way for the industry to get back on track. It just needs to
>be discovered before there's nothing left to salvage.
>
I think there really is no way to deal with it on a personal level.
It is the same discussion over in the movie ngs about blockbuster
movies.
People can still learn programming and create the games that they
think are creative, but in an environment that production value sells
and gamers want bigger and flashier graphics on top of the gameplay,
going that route will not change the game industry.
I prefer to look at the market as a system with its own dynamics. The
fact that we are here today tells you something about the system ..
namely it is not very likely to go back to the old ways no matter how
hard one tries.
It is the same with movies. To a lesser extend is the paperback
industry. Look at how many trashy Star Trek novels are being written.
When you talk about what people wants ... it is what YOU wants. People
wants flashy graphics more than games, as demonstrated in the high
sales of Myst and Riven. (which is a sad sad thing but we have to face
the truth, don't we?)
Kay-Yut
Robert Perrett
> even mention them. If you want good games. Listen and consider reviews. If the
> game is bad don't buy it. The problem is you think companies are go to listen
> just to you. Well, they won't. Only if you refused to buy bad games. Can't games
> be design with both in mind for newbies and gamers?
>
Tech
> I don't disagree with a lot of what you said. The fundamental
> contradiction is that "the companies" want to make money rather than
> produce great games. How can they do that? Because people keep
> buying the games even though they're not great. So, either people are
> generally stupid, buying what they don't want and not learning from
> experience, or there are enough people out there who are getting their
> money's worth. I think the second possibility is more likely. I
You've missed the growth of computers into te commodity market. This
pushes up the number of new users who still don't know what to expect.
Also it increase the number of OEM bundles thereby increasing the
saturation of games which get run once, if they install! Then get deleted
when the space is needed.
Eg my graphics card came with 4 or 5 games. None of which have succeeded
in capturing my attention for more than ten minutes. They still register
as sales though.
As a system builder I have upgraded many machines only to find that the
customers still want the best games. I generally tidy up their systems
for them and delete as much crap as I can. [Reduces the returns ;-))]
I rarley get allowed to delete SimCity, Doom et al.
Tech
> Amen. Computer games, the music industry, same story. The magic just
> isn't there anymore. The innovators got old and the profit-makers grew
> bold. It's all about the bucks and probably always was, but they sure as
> hell are a lot more obvious about it than they used to be.
I would change that slightly. The innovators who made it rested. Those who didn't
are ignored. The profit makers do the minimum and less, for the maximum return.
Robert Perrett
> See, I disagree. If you replay King's Quest 5 and find it's junk, well,
> that's probably because the game _is_ junk, and always was. Lord knows I
> hated it the first time I played - terrible story, terrible interface.
>
It was my first game. I replay it and couldn't believe I like that. So, KQ5 is
bad.
> Games which rely solely on technology to impress will suffer with time, of
> course. I doubt anybody would think much of KQ5 nowadays, and nobody's going
> to care about Quake a couple of years from now. But games that rely on real
> quality don't have this problem; anybody who looks at something like Trinity
> or A Mind Forever Voyaging and just sees a supposedly-antiquated interface
> isn't looking very far.
>
AMFV looks good. Both of those games look like Classics.
> (Of course, the style of game matters too. As CGW pointed out in their
> reviews, the Masterpieces of Infocom are still worth playing, especially
> if you haven't played them all before, whereas those classic Atari packs
> are pretty much just a novelty, because action/arcade games are highly
> dependent on whiz-bang graphics; with adventure games, the story's the
> thing.)
The Story is the thing. I like that. What I worry is Roberta may make the genre
worry too much about technology. I like the new 3d. I want it to come. I want the
best of both worlds. What Grim Fandango and GK3 is fine for me.
Trevor Barrie
wrote:
>>Why are you so disapoint? The magic seems to have been lost. You will find
>>it. I know you will. It is hard too. Should I go buy Infocom masterpices of
>>Text adventure. I have been thinking about it. I don't know. I play games
>>since 7 years ago and that was KQ5. Yuck. I replay that and that is awful.
>
> I don't think anyone could put it any better. Those games were part of the
>'New Frontier' of that time. They just would not compare to what we have
>today, but it doesn't matter because we loved them _at the time_, and thats
>all that matters. You grow up and so do your tastes and expectations.
See, I disagree. If you replay King's Quest 5 and find it's junk, well,
that's probably because the game _is_ junk, and always was. Lord knows I
hated it the first time I played - terrible story, terrible interface.
Games which rely solely on technology to impress will suffer with time, of
course. I doubt anybody would think much of KQ5 nowadays, and nobody's going
to care about Quake a couple of years from now. But games that rely on real
quality don't have this problem; anybody who looks at something like Trinity
or A Mind Forever Voyaging and just sees a supposedly-antiquated interface
isn't looking very far.
(Of course, the style of game matters too. As CGW pointed out in their
Trevor Barrie
>Hear hear. I used to love the first ever text adventure which was
>released (was it called 'The Adventure?'), where you were looking for
>the lost pirate treasure, and after finding it for the first time a
>ghost of a pirate would take it from you and hide it again.
The first text adventure was Crowley and Woods' "Colossal Cave". The
game you're describing sounds like "Pirate Adventure", which I _think_
was a Scott Adams production (but don't quote me on that). It came
much later.
>But today... no way! The only reason I loved it was because it was the
>first and only adventure game back then.
2-word parser games are definitely a pain to use nowadays.
Derek Struye - Destroy
I gotta say " YOUR ON CRACK DUDE!!!!"
There are plenty of high quality games out there.
Personally, I like the technology pushing the industry. I'm so sick of
square shaped monsters I could puke. The faster the hardware comes out
the faster those squares become more realisticly round.
Thousands of choices but only maybe 50 'quality' ones. An informed
gamer knows which ones to buy. :)
Edward Glamkowski
> On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 10:05:11 GMT, Noppa <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >Hear hear. I used to love the first ever text adventure which was
> >released (was it called 'The Adventure?'), where you were looking for
> >the lost pirate treasure, and after finding it for the first time a
> >ghost of a pirate would take it from you and hide it again.
>
> The first text adventure was Crowley and Woods' "Colossal Cave". The
> game you're describing sounds like "Pirate Adventure", which I _think_
> was a Scott Adams production (but don't quote me on that). It came
> much later.
There was a text adventure game for UNIX called "Adventure".
I do believe it was the first ever :p
Don't know if it is the one he is describing (never having played
it), but I have seen it hanging around on quite a few UNIX systems
I have used... ;)
--
"Have you no sense of decency, sir?
At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Come join my web-ring! http://www.angelfire.com/nj/eglamkowski/null.html
rco...@servicesoft.com
I think jaded (and slightly addled) is a good term. (This is from an
addled 45 year old of course). I think the first few years of computer
gaming were so much fun because everything was fresh and the potential
seemed limitless. On the other hand, I remember upgrading my computer
just so I could play Myst or seeing Diablo for the 1st time and saying
to myself that I "must" have this game. That wasn't that long ago.
In many ways the potential for "really" good games is very high these days,
processor power being so high these days... Theres just more noise these
days, so I think one needs to be more discriminating... It's a good thing
that many companies release demos these days. It helps a lot in determining
where I'm going to spend my money.
In article <35C62A77...@injersey.infi.net>,
Savoldi <rmie...@injersey.infi.net> wrote:
> Point well taken. Jaded is probably being kind to my eroded 48 year old
> cultural sensibilities. I'm hyper-jaded.
>
> Mark Asher wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 02 Aug 1998 16:23:23 -0400, Savoldi
> > <rmie...@injersey.infi.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Amen. Computer games, the music industry, same story. The magic just
> > >isn't there anymore. The innovators got old and the profit-makers grew
> > >bold. It's all about the bucks and probably always was, but they sure as
> > >hell are a lot more obvious about it than they used to be.
> >
> > Part of it is just getting older and becoming jaded I think. I'm not a
> > big fan of pop music anymore, but I really don't think the pop music
> > of my day was any better than the stuff I hear today. I've just
> > outgrown it. Music isn't as important to me now.
> >
> > If you think about it, the good old days of gaming are really just the
> > memories of selected classic titles. There were lots of bad games
> > released also, but we don't factor in our appraisal of the past,
> > simply because we forget about them.
> >
> > Mark Asher
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
rco...@servicesoft.com
It's pretty old. Part of the legend associated with this game was that the
engineers at Data General used it as their first acceptance test when
building their first 32 bit mini in "Soul of a new Machine".
In article <slrn6scfgv....@drollsden.ibm.net>,
tba...@ibm.net (Trevor Barrie) wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 10:05:11 GMT, Noppa <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >Hear hear. I used to love the first ever text adventure which was
> >released (was it called 'The Adventure?'), where you were looking for
> >the lost pirate treasure, and after finding it for the first time a
> >ghost of a pirate would take it from you and hide it again.
>
> The first text adventure was Crowley and Woods' "Colossal Cave". The
> game you're describing sounds like "Pirate Adventure", which I _think_
> was a Scott Adams production (but don't quote me on that). It came
> much later.
>
> >But today... no way! The only reason I loved it was because it was the
> >first and only adventure game back then.
>
> 2-word parser games are definitely a pain to use nowadays.
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
joelm...@geocities.com
eglam...@angelfire.com wrote:
> Trevor Barrie wrote:
> > On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 10:05:11 GMT, Noppa <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Hear hear. I used to love the first ever text adventure which was
> > >released (was it called 'The Adventure?'), where you were looking for
> > >the lost pirate treasure, and after finding it for the first time a
> > >ghost of a pirate would take it from you and hide it again.
> >
> > The first text adventure was Crowley and Woods' "Colossal Cave". The
> > game you're describing sounds like "Pirate Adventure", which I _think_
> > was a Scott Adams production (but don't quote me on that). It came
> > much later.
>
> I do believe it was the first ever :p
>
> Don't know if it is the one he is describing (never having played
> it), but I have seen it hanging around on quite a few UNIX systems
> I have used... ;)
Just to try to clear this up a bit, Colossal Cave was first, but it has
been distributed repeatedly under the name Adventure. Its all the same
game, though, from starting at the Well House and moving on down.
Joel Mathis
Mark Asher
<d...@thinkage.on.ca> wrote:
>A second hope is to provide a low budget channel from game makers to
>game players. It costs a lot of money to put a game on the shelf, not
>for production, just for the shelf space. If you're paying $50 for a
>game, you expect a big budget blockbuster. If you could get games in a
>bookstore-like environment, or like a record store, the games could be
>sold cheaper, say $10-$15, since there would be a much smaller stocking
>overhead. This provides a channel for low budget "independent" games.
The above means no printed manual, of course, and a simple CD
jewelbox. Not sure how that would go over.
>In the longer run, I think the situation will sort itself out. Some
>other posters have talked about no limit to the technology increase,
>but I disagree. Hardware may get better, but we're already approaching
>the limits of human perception. Fast 3D on a 21 inch monitor, 1280x1024,
>24 bit colour, with surround sound -- until virtual reality stuff kicks
>in, you don't need more, and these specs are not far off. Game
>technology will soon be hitting the human limit, at least with the
>current monitor+speakers based configuration. This also means less
>obsolescence, so the Citizen Kane of games can still profitably
>occupy retail shelf space many years after production.
I'm going to disagree. I think we will simply see more polygons and
more polygons until we get to photo-realistic graphics, and I think we
are several years away from having PCs that are mainstream emough to
support that. Another technology that may be implemented might be
voice recognition, which really sucks up the CPU cycles.
So by the time we get PCs fast enough to do the above, I suspect that
VR stuff will be on the way. The upgrade parade will continue. Don't
forget about DVD, either. We're probably going to have to get one of
those at some point too.
>The market is still growing, too. A big budget game may cost several
>millions to make and promote, but this is peanuts compared to even a
>small film. With a bigger market, the big hits have a bigger profit
>margin, leaving more money to pay for the riskier endeavours. One big
>hit can pay for many misses.
Yeah, but the mentality doesn't seem to be to go for the risky titles.
It seems to be to go for the safe titles.
>Another change will be the experience of the market -- the game players.
>Today, only a small percentage of players have been playing for more
>than 10 years (maybe even 5). New game players are likely more impressed
>by all the eye&ear candy. Once they've become jaded to the gloss, they'll
>appreciate more creative, artistic substance. Eventually, the older,
>more experienced, less adrenaline addicted demographic will be a large
>enough percentage of the market to support games targetted for it.
Yes and no. The FPS games still sell well, as do the flight-sims.
Those are all about graphics, and the hardcore fans don't seem to ever
get enough. I don't think it's a given that if you play Monopoly and
other board games that you begin to yearn for more complex boardgames
after awhile. But I agree that as the market continues to expand,
there will be more room for niche games. It's just going to take savvy
companies to exploit these niches.
>The alternative is for the industry to go the way of comic books, and
>I don't think anybody on either side of the cash register wants that.
That's a little bit different -- professional collectors helped wreck
that industry, and it's not like the comics are going away either --
just some painful restructuring.
I actually think buggy games are the biggest threat to the industry.
I'm sure that newcomers get burned by bad games and never return to
the hobby all the time. Bad games killed the home videogame market
until Nintendo jumped in to revive it. Buggy product will keep the PC
games industry from growing as fast as it should.
Mark Asher
Jorgé Vigoda
and I have to say one thing. What are you complaining about???!!! if you
have a decent internet connection, a fairly fast PC, a utility like MOSLo,
you can play thousands of games from almost any era.
1. Emulators: allow you to play with great accuracy: almost any arcade game
before 1990, almost every console game before 1995, tons of Amiga, Apple II,
C-64 and Atari ST games, even crappy old Atari & Coleco games. No one could
do that in the "good old days."
2. Huge quantities of older PC games: With a little gumption and hard work,
you can find hundreds of old school games on the web, or buy discounted
collections (Ultimate RPG archives, Infocom Text Classics, etc) at software
stores. It's rarer to find an industry that cuts its prices by 75% in two
years. This is for almost all but the biggest sellers.
3. The New Stuff: People will complain anyway but here goes. Today's new
stuff is amazing. This is a huge industry. Companies are spending millions
developing stuff. Hardware capabilities are climbing through the roof.
Anybody here tried a little game called "Unreal" yet? Your right though,
it's no "Bard's Tale" (snicker snicker). Some of today's stuff is big
budget crap I admit. This is big time industry now, this is inevitable.
Sure we're losing some mom & pop houses to bigger companies. But we still
have several major talent houses: LucasArts, Blizzard, Id, Looking Glass.
Tons of new startups are emerging. There are so many titles being produced
by this boom that most people will find something they like, perhaps by an
underground developer or a fringe outfit, but the stuff's still being made.
There are tons of text adventures still being produced, old-school RPGs
(exile type stuff).
People complain that such-and-such genre is dead. Hogwash! Old school turn
based strategy? There are still tons of these being made, & they look
better than ever. RPGs? Loads of shareware stuff that beats the pants of
the old CGA ones, and some fine big company ones too: Fallout & might &
Magic 6. The Graphic Adventure? A company called LucasArts still makes 'em
& often better than before. Simulators? Fuggedaboutit. Action?
FUGEDABOUTIT!!!
I admit that the mainstream stuff is maybe a little too cutting edge
(hardware wise) for its own good. And the big companies play the safe
cookie cutter design formula. but lots of good stuff has still emerged
within this formula (Unreal, StarCraft, Jedi Knight, BattleZone), and the
not so popular stuff is still being made.
My bottom line is that more good stuff is available now than ever before
(including the fact that almost any previously coded computer or video game
is playable on our pentiums).
Let's face it Oldtimers, it's big business now. But, for every Barbie Gets
a Manicure and Wild Pigeon Hunter, there are also tons of Battles of
Napolean or Mordor 2 or whatever it is you that will give you warm feeling
downstairs.
I used to get nostalgic too, until I realized that the fond memories about
that stuff had more to do with remembering being a little younger, a little
thinner, maybe a little bolder, than with how cool the Original Prince of
Persia was. give me Abe's Odyssey any day. . .
Live it up good people,
Mike
Steve Young
DVS Lurker wrote in message <6q3v8l$c...@news1.emarites.net.ae>...
>Savoldi wrote in message <35C4CABB...@injersey.infi.net>...
>>Amen. Computer games, the music industry, same story. The magic just
>>isn't there anymore. The innovators got old and the profit-makers grew
>>bold. It's all about the bucks and probably always was, but they sure as
>>hell are a lot more obvious about it than they used to be.
>>
>many computer games are released at the same time. You've got a much bigger
>choice.
What choice. There maybe are many released at the same time, but they are
all clones of each other and mostly BORING. I walk around shops like EB and
see row after row of Action/RTS/3d type hybrids which have all the interest
of watching paint dry.
There are still games which will become classics, like Diablo,
>Quake, Starcraft, C&C series, Duke3D, Blade Runner.....etc. There are still
>many games here that will come into the classics category. Heck in the old
>days it used to take forever for new games to come out. Probably because
>there were less developers in those days.
What are you talking about. There were hundreds of developers and software
companies available in the 80's, now the software companies are in single
figures. Yes there are still many developers, but they are told what to make
by their software masters. As for the games you mention, I doubt anyone will
remember or care two cents about any of them in 5 years time.
>The problem is we all have been 'exposed' too much as they say. In the old
>days when I used to get a game for example civilization, I used to stick to
>it and play for about 8 months or maybe even more, and now when I get
>civilization 2 , I play it for only 2 months and then I am thirsty for
more!
>;-) Present day games leave that thirst a lot.
You seem to be contradicting yourself now. If they are so marvellous why are
you thirsty for more. Could it be todays games are boring, uninteresting and
lack any lasting interest. Though I wouldn't hardly include Civ2 in that
category, as it is one of the few truly great games released in the last few
years.
Steve
Steve Young
>their money. Honestly, there are so many resources to take advantage of
>today, *especially* when it comes to buying computer games.
This is no different to a few years ago. I actually think most people are
more discriminative in the games they buy then ever before
>Thankfully, there is
>a core group of companies who have a sparkling track record for putting out
>great games, IMHO (ID, Blizzard..) plus many more with mainly great track
>records...(Origin comes to mind...:) ). If the gaming community would just
>take the extra time to sort the shit from the shinola, we might see the
>flash-in-the-pan, cash in companies head out the door that much quicker
>while strongly discouraging slicksters from thinking they can take a pile
of
>crap, wrap it in a nice package and sneak it on the shelves.
You certainly seem to have more faith in the status quo than I do. While the
gaming public consists of people like you who think everything is rosy, the
industry will continue to release uninspiring rubbish like today. With a few
exceptions, most of the software companies left are the ones who have
produced the rubbish that has brought the software industry to where it is
today, while all the innovative companies have long since either gone to the
wall or been sucked into these corperations.
>As long as
>there is still a chance to put a worthless hack on the shelves and make a
>profit, we won't even make a dent in the trend of the good vs. worthless
>games ratio.
I agree, but if you take a look at the stuff on the shelves you will see it
is full of worthless games mostly unispiring and bugridden. Unfortunately
they are the status quo.
Steve
Steve Young
Noppa wrote in message <35c98840...@news.nmp.nokia.com>...
>Matthew Murray <mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> wrote:
>>to find in games these days. Even bad games from the earliest years of
>>computer gaming were more magical than most of what I see littering the
>>shelves today.
>
>I think that is only because there was a smaller selection of games
>back then. If you have less to choose from, even the worse games seem
>better.
I disagree that there was less choice years ago. Surely it is the other way
around.
>Someone said that he has grown out of pop music. Maybe these people
>who say games of today don't have the same magic as games 15 years ago
>have grown out of computer games too?
>
>In a way that applies to me too. 16 years ago when I was playing with
>my first gaming machine, TI-99/4A, ANY game on it, or any other system
>for that matter, seemed great and worth playing. Nowadays I'm much
>more demanding for the games I play. Only maybe 30% of the games
>released today interest me at all, but I don't think that is because
>I feel games have become worse.
Firstly, there may not have been much choice for machines like the TI-99/4A,
but there certainly was for many of the other 8 bit machines. And if you can
find 30% of todays games that interest you, you're clearly fortunate and
probably into arcade type games. Only about 5% of the titles hold any
interest to me, if that. But this is true of any of us who are not into
these 3d/arcade/RTS type hybrids that seem to be everywhere today.
Steve
Eric Evans
Jorgé Vigoda wrote in message <35c72d54....@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
>Well I started PC gaming just a few years ago after years of console
gaming,
>and I have to say one thing. What are you complaining about???!!! if you
>have a decent internet connection, a fairly fast PC, a utility like MOSLo,
>you can play thousands of games from almost any era.
<snip>
>
>My bottom line is that more good stuff is available now than ever before
>(including the fact that almost any previously coded computer or video game
>is playable on our pentiums).
>
>Let's face it Oldtimers, it's big business now. But, for every Barbie Gets
>a Manicure and Wild Pigeon Hunter, there are also tons of Battles of
>Napolean or Mordor 2 or whatever it is you that will give you warm feeling
>downstairs.
>
>I used to get nostalgic too, until I realized that the fond memories about
>that stuff had more to do with remembering being a little younger, a little
>thinner, maybe a little bolder, than with how cool the Original Prince of
>Persia was. give me Abe's Odyssey any day. . .
>
>Live it up good people,
>Mike
What a great post and I couldn't agree more. With the advent of emulators
we can draw upon the rich history without having to fire up that Atari 2600
(although I still do that from time to time) or adding a wing unto the house
to accomodate those vintage Asteroids, Pacman, Spyhunter and Space Invader
machines.
At the same time, we've got this huge, thriving industry that while
churning out a fair amount of boring duds, still and I think always will
turn out great titles that capture the imagination. The fact that the
industry has gotten so big I think helps to ensure that great titles are
produced rather than preventing them. Entreprenuer is a good example. A
small company, with a title that is very modest in the glitz department but
yet it's gained a huge, rabid following because of the folks in c.s.i.p.g.s.
CSIPGS wouldn't exist in it's current form if the gaming industry weren't so
big. I wonder how many people have discovered Ent. through logging into
CSIPG to get support for that dud of a game that they spent good money on?
Anyway, that's my $.02.
Jorgé Vigoda
tons of mini games, without spending a nickel (the Internet) or a few bucks
('zine CDs). I got all the pleasure I could have ever wanted out of
Starcraft, Longbow 2, Janes F-15, I-War and Uprising for next to no money.
Being decent games, I might have bought them on their reviews alone, then
played them for an hour a piece before tiring of them (for no good reason -
some games just don't "click" -- I mean, I like Yoda Stories ??!!). I saved
big money by being able to try them out first. I had some fun then moved
on. When I started doing this, the only thing available, was fluff like
Jill of the Jungle and Moraff's Mahjongg, a 20 minute download from a local
BBS, compare that to Quake shareware.
Mike
On Tue, 04 Aug 1998 16:24:24 GMT, jorgé@stinkbomb.com (Jorgé Vigoda) wrote:
<snip - pls read main post>
The Gamer
least for me, a great game will always be a great game. I never owned
an Atari 2600, I was into Intellivision at the time. I did get a
Commodore C64 when it first came out (I can still remember the
television commercial for that thing! Little boy on Christmas morning
opening it up...) and there are C64 games that I still enjoy. I still
play Pirates on my Amiga (as well as Wings). Sure they don't look as
good as present day games, but the gameplay was and still is there.
The Gamer
> I don't think anyone could put it any better. Those games were part of the
>'New Frontier' of that time. They just would not compare to what we have
>today, but it doesn't matter because we loved them _at the time_, and thats
>all that matters. You grow up and so do your tastes and expectations.
>There are very few (I might be hard pressed to name even one) games from 10
>years ago that I would still enjoy enough to sit down and play them through
>again. I'm not saying that technology makes a game...there are plenty of
>misguided games sitting on the shelf at your local EB as I type. For many
>of the truly veteran gamers (those of us who owned an Atari 2600), it just
>takes more and more to reach that same level of gaming pleasure. Call me
>crazy, but playing 'Hero' on my Atari 2600 just doesn't hold the same appeal
>it did 12 years ago.
>
>-Joe
>
>*remove XYZ to email me*
>
Remove "DIESPAM" before replying by email
The Gamer
Fidonet. Ah, those were the days. Moderated newsgroups where if you
said even the slightest wrong thing, you would be banished for 2 weeks
or more.......
The Gamer
>Actually, to be pedantic, the newsgroups back before the web were probably
>the major resource for games and such. If you're old enough to remember the
>Backbone Cabal, you probably know what I referring to. While I came around
>about three years after the Great Renaming, there were still major
>reprecussions being felt even then...
>
>You got your info from the gamers, not from the marketing approved material
>published on a companies web page...
>
>
Remove "DIESPAM" before replying by email
azog
rco...@servicesoft.com wrote in message <6q74u7$b51$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>The game I think that is being mentioned here was just called "adventure".
>It's pretty old. Part of the legend associated with this game was that the
>engineers at Data General used it as their first acceptance test when
>building their first 32 bit mini in "Soul of a new Machine".
I had an old friend, Charley Lasner. If that name rings a bell, then you're
old :) He is (was?) the god of PDP-8 computers. I shan't get into the
discussion of PDP-8s or other DEC stuff, but one of the machines he had at
the time I knew him had a scope as the display, and was used in a court
decision on what and when the first computer game was... (these were
machines that lived around 1965, just to give you an idea of the age
involved. They were also based on a slightly different word length - 36 bits
being the most popular at the time)
Charley, are you out there?
>
>
>
>In article <slrn6scfgv....@drollsden.ibm.net>,
> tba...@ibm.net (Trevor Barrie) wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 10:05:11 GMT, Noppa <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hear hear. I used to love the first ever text adventure which was
>> >released (was it called 'The Adventure?'), where you were looking for
>> >the lost pirate treasure, and after finding it for the first time a
>> >ghost of a pirate would take it from you and hide it again.
>>
>> The first text adventure was Crowley and Woods' "Colossal Cave". The
>> game you're describing sounds like "Pirate Adventure", which I _think_
>> was a Scott Adams production (but don't quote me on that). It came
>> much later.
>>
>> >But today... no way! The only reason I loved it was because it was the
>> >first and only adventure game back then.
>>
>> 2-word parser games are definitely a pain to use nowadays.
>>
>
Alex Green
computer games. Take for example the timeless classics of chess,
checkers/draughts, othello, connect 4, not to mention various card and
other board games - I'm sure there are a whole slew of board games that
were the equivalent of the junk computer games, yet there is an element to
the ones listed above that makes them timeless classics (obviously not
story, but I'm sure you get my drift). Did the person that invented each
of those games wonder at the time 'what a bunch of shit we have to
entertain ourselves with'? Obviously, the technology does not factor into
these games as much as it does with computer games - not to mention the
number of 'clones' that have arisen from each.
To draw another parallel (to music, film, books) - again look at the amount
of drivel that is being spewed out from every angle, yet every now and
again there is something original (or at least containing a spark of
originality) that it is labeled 'amazing' or 'timeless'. I would posture
that despite all the advances in technology in the film industry that there
are still a huge amount of people that would watch a twenty-year old film
that had excellent directing (or facilitates good narration), compelling
story, and (IMO, most importantly) entertaining script rather than be
forced to watch 'Godzilla' twice.
My point is (differences aside between the parallels drawn) - there will
always be a tremendous amount of crap (whether from cloning a good idea, or
not fully exploring the potential of some originality), but there will
always continue to be someone that will determine a new direction where
there was nothing before. My personal view, is that not enough time is
spent on producing (read polishing) something memorable when that new
direction may have been found.
Blah, blah, blah.
Alex.
Noppa <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in article
<35c98840...@news.nmp.nokia.com>...
> Maybe in the early eighties it was much easier to create completely
> new genres (ie. fresh ideas and games) simply because the gaming
> market was so young? The rate at which new ideas are invented is bound
> to become slower over time.
>
> For instance, back in the early eighties when I was a kid, it was very
> easy even for me to invent new ideas for games, I just didn't have the
> programming knowledge to make many of them happen back then. Nowadays
> I find it much harder to invent anything new for computer/video games
> simply because 'all' ideas seem to be used already in some other
> games.
>
> I think that is only because there was a smaller selection of games
> back then. If you have less to choose from, even the worse games seem
> better.
>
Seth Fultz
of the industry if everything that was crap was labeled as such.
Every box could have a nifty little picture on it. You could go through
and just pick out the games that had little golden crowns on them, safe
that it was a good game. Games that sucked could be easily identified by
the picture of a pile of dung on it with the little smell lines flowing off
of it.
There's a government agency that we'd all like. The US Bureau of Quality
in Computer Games. Anyone who labels a product 'Timeless', or 'A Classic'
when it isn't true would be fined back into the stone age.
Just kidding, of course...
Seth Fultz
sdf...@qgraph.com
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
>The first text adventure was Crowley and Woods' "Colossal Cave". The
>game you're describing sounds like "Pirate Adventure", which I _think_
>was a Scott Adams production (but don't quote me on that). It came
>much later.
Yup, sounds about right. Scott Adams' games had simple parsers, IIRC;
but then, nobody (except perhaps Level 9 and Melbourne House) tried to
match Infocom's.
The first text adventure with graphics - wasn't that Melbourne House's
"The Hobbit" (floppy version)?
>2-word parser games are definitely a pain to use nowadays.
Heh. I wrote about ten simple two-word games on my trusty old Oric-1
way back when...
--
"I had to upgrade the memory of my 8088 from to 256K to 640K just to play [Demon's Winter]."
- gmad...@usa.net
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen http://www.pvv.org/%7etoriver/
ttammi
>>I think that is only because there was a smaller selection of games
>>back then. If you have less to choose from, even the worse games seem
>>better.
>
>I disagree that there was less choice years ago. Surely it is the other way
>around.
Surely it is not.
>but there certainly was for many of the other 8 bit machines. And if you can
>find 30% of todays games that interest you, you're clearly fortunate and
>probably into arcade type games. Only about 5% of the titles hold any
Most games released for PC today are not arcade games. For consoles
maybe, but not for PCs.
.
Oliver
> Basically, what I have described is a shareware economics world for
> game design and distribution. If the infrastructure could be put in place
> (a big if), and early on some good games emerged (another big if),
> it could work. Now all we need is someone to write a game engine,
> some good designers to start a library of scenes/objects and a
> good game designer to use them! A tall order, but then someone
> did write Linux and all the GNU programs, so it's not impossible.
>
> Martin (hoping I'm not dreaming)
You sure are not. I was toying with this idea of an adventure game
construction kit and am still very much interested in getting down to really
designing one and implementing it... well, like all simple folks says... "if
only I had the time"... but, who knows? Someone might have thought about it
and could be unleashing it upon the unsuspecting world even as I type this.
Maybe you?? Why not?
Alex
<snip>
>>
>>In a way that applies to me too. 16 years ago when I was playing with
>>my first gaming machine, TI-99/4A, ANY game on it, or any other system
>>for that matter, seemed great and worth playing. Nowadays I'm much
>>more demanding for the games I play. Only maybe 30% of the games
>>released today interest me at all, but I don't think that is because
>>I feel games have become worse.
>
>
>Firstly, there may not have been much choice for machines like the TI-99/4A,
>but there certainly was for many of the other 8 bit machines. And if you can
>find 30% of todays games that interest you, you're clearly fortunate and
>probably into arcade type games. Only about 5% of the titles hold any
>interest to me, if that. But this is true of any of us who are not into
>these 3d/arcade/RTS type hybrids that seem to be everywhere today.
>
>Steve
>
Yes, typically I see maybe one or two games on the shelves that even
slightly interests me. Whereas I can remember walking into game stores
some years back and nearly salivating from the choices available.
Well-crafted story-writing has been way down on the list for game
developers lately. There are a few companies still attempting to take
a crack at developing mature, intelligent drama and/or comedy in
games, but they are a dying breed. Games for me were always an
expensive substitute for a good book or movie. Now they're nothing
more than an expensive (and often frustrating) diversion.
I agree with the earlier post that the technology race will not end
until we are able to see games that are photo-realistic 3D. That's a
long way off and the buying public is still snatching up FPS and
flight sims in droves. Seems like an awful lot of cash to fork over
for a couple minutes worth of eye candy (and gameplay that mimics
every other game just like it).
Alex
Adam Shaikh
the
>gaming public consists of people like you who think everything is rosy, the
>industry will continue to release uninspiring rubbish like today. With a
few
>exceptions, most of the software companies left are the ones who have
>produced the rubbish that has brought the software industry to where it is
>today, while all the innovative companies have long since either gone to
the
>wall or been sucked into these corperations.
>
I disagree with this. If I think about the "uninspired rubbish" that is
around today, and then look at the wonder that was 8-bit gaming, I realise
that we have never had it so good. Sure, there are not as many completely
new ideas as back then, but we are many thousands of games later. Just like
there are far fewer original films, and those that are original generally
suck. Why? Because quite often there is a reason that something hasn't
been done before. Originality is not the defining factor in whether a game
is good. You only have to look at games like Starcraft, Masters of Magic,
Final Fantasy 7 etc. I will play any of these games, any day over the likes
of Sabre Wulf, Atic Atac, Jet Set Willy etc.
And if the innovative companies have gone to the wall (I'd be interested to
know which ones, not to argue, but just to see what you mean), the people
who wrote those products are probably still around in the industry, and they
probably haven't decided to produce pure crap. Game developers do want to
produce the best game they possibly can, just like every other profession.
Adam
Paul Campbell
> > Computer Gaming World taken over by Ziff-Davis? Ken Williams
> >giving up Sierra On-Line? Ultima becoming an action/adventure series?
> >What's going on?
> >[snip]
> > Games have in the past, and can again, be more than what we're
> >currently being exposed to. If you feel this way, please, make your voice
> >heard. Let's take our industry back again.
>
> While your concern is generally valid, there are only two real things
> that people can do to change the situation... one, the less common
> one, is for those so inclined to learn programming/art/etc and get
> together to make something different. But the more general option for
> the rest of the world is to vote with your pocketbooks. Writing
> letters and such won't change things, only the money will.
>
Personally I think the main problem with modern games is the quality in terms
of bugs and stuff rather than how clever or original the concept is.
I can remember when (say 4 or 5 years ago ) good games were so infrequently
released that you were literally waiting around between purchases - I actually
had money to spend and time to invest but thee simlply were not enough good
games around.
Nowadays I'm so spoilt for choice with excellent games being released
at the rate of several every month that I would need the rest of my life just
to play all the good game out *now*. In fact I doubt I could keep pace
with the games even in a single genre let alone all of them !.
I must say though that Im not hung up on this "originality" thing as
lets face it most entertainment media revolves around guns, cars, aliens,
elves and spaceships and that fine by me and it beats me what all those
crying out for originalty actually want. Its all very well to moan at
developers for not being original but what why dont you tell them what
you actually do want and maybe they'l do it.
Paul C.
UK.
Noppa
>There was a text adventure game for UNIX called "Adventure".
>I do believe it was the first ever :p
I think that must be the one. I'm not quite sure if this was the one
with the pirate treasure and pirate ghost, but I do remember playing a
text adventure called something simple like "Adventure". And it was
the first ever text adventure I remember seeing.
>Don't know if it is the one he is describing (never having played
>it), but I have seen it hanging around on quite a few UNIX systems
>I have used... ;)
For what it's worth, I didn't play it on any PC or CP/M machine, but
it was running on some of those big mainframes at the university
(whether they had UNIX or which OS, I don't know). I was connected to
that mainframe with a Kaypro CP/M machine by using a 300bps modem, and
played it that way. That was a very long time ago, in the very early
eighties or so when I was a young kid. My brother was studying and
working at the university, that's why I could play it.
Noppa
>On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 10:05:11 GMT, Noppa <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>Hear hear. I used to love the first ever text adventure which was
>>released (was it called 'The Adventure?'), where you were looking for
>>the lost pirate treasure, and after finding it for the first time a
>>ghost of a pirate would take it from you and hide it again.
>
>The first text adventure was Crowley and Woods' "Colossal Cave". The
>game you're describing sounds like "Pirate Adventure", which I _think_
>was a Scott Adams production (but don't quote me on that). It came
>much later.
The name "Pirate Adventure" does not ring a bell at all. I don't
recall playing an adventure game by that name. Colossal Cave does ring
a bell, I have probably played that at some point.
But I could swear the name of that ancient text adventure was
something very simple like "The Adventure". It wasn't running on any
microcomputer of that time (CP/M machines), but in a biiiig mainframe
machine at the university, to which I was connected with a very slow
(300bps?) modem and a Kaypro or Osborne CP/M machine. It was the very
first text adventure game I remember ever seeing.
>>But today... no way! The only reason I loved it was because it was the
>>first and only adventure game back then.
>
>2-word parser games are definitely a pain to use nowadays.
I would say the same about almost any parser game. :)
Noppa
>Noppa wrote in message <35c98840...@news.nmp.nokia.com>...
>>Matthew Murray <mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> wrote:
>>>to find in games these days. Even bad games from the earliest years of
>>>computer gaming were more magical than most of what I see littering the
>>>shelves today.
>>
>>I think that is only because there was a smaller selection of games
>>back then. If you have less to choose from, even the worse games seem
>>better.
>
>I disagree that there was less choice years ago. Surely it is the other way
>around.
Which machines exactly did you have in mind? There are loads of games
released annually for PCs (and consoles). I was a heavy gamer in the
early 80s too, and don't remember as many games released on any
machines of that time. Later Commodore64, Sinclair Spectrum and
AppleII got more games, but IMHO there are more games released today.
>Firstly, there may not have been much choice for machines like the TI-99/4A,
>but there certainly was for many of the other 8 bit machines.
Back then the other 8bit machines were, what, something like Commodore
VIC-20 and Sinclair ZX-80. Maybe AppleII too.
>And if you can
>find 30% of todays games that interest you, you're clearly fortunate and
>probably into arcade type games.
I guess you are trying to belittle me. No, I am not into arcade type
games that much (unless you call adventures, RPGs, flight sims and
racing sims arcade games). No, most PC games released today are not
arcade games.
And I don't see why you should be complaining anyway, because for
those ancient 8-bit machines (VIC-20, Sinclair Spectrum, Commodore 64,
Apple II etc.) 95% of released games were simple action games.
For example if you visit Asimov's AppleII game archive or Arnold's
Commodore64 game archive (ftp sites with hundreds of games for those
machines), you will see there are loads more action games in there
than RPG or adventure games.
>Only about 5% of the titles hold any
>interest to me, if that.
Like I said, some people don't like pop music either when they grow
older. But I still can't believe you are complaining that there are
too many action games released today for PCs, when 95% of games
released for 8bit machines were much simpler action games.
I guess that is another example of how people remember only the great
games like Elites, PSI Trading Companies, Ultima IIIs and M.U.L.E.s of
the older machines, and forget about all the mediocre action games and
movie licensed games released for them.
Noppa
>The above means no printed manual, of course, and a simple CD
>jewelbox. Not sure how that would go over.
I could live with that. In fact I hate it with most PC games where
they are selling the games in biiiig carton boxes even if the game and
the little leaflet coming with it didn't need it.
One good example: Final Fantasy 7 PC. How come the Playstation version
didn't need that big carton box?
>Yes and no. The FPS games still sell well, as do the flight-sims.
>Those are all about graphics, and the hardcore fans don't seem to ever
Quite wrong. Flight sims are more about the enemy AI, campaign system,
realistic avionics/flight model etc. etc. A good FPS game has great
enemy AI, interesting and varied missions, lots of surprises etc.
N64 Goldeneye is a good example, and Half-life has promise in it too.
It is definitely not "all about graphics".
Noppa
>Just to try to clear this up a bit, Colossal Cave was first, but it has
>been distributed repeatedly under the name Adventure. Its all the same
>game, though, from starting at the Well House and moving on down.
Thanks. That must be why both names ("Adventure" and "Colossal Cave")
rang a bell for me. I played either one on a mainframe back then.
Noppa
>What choice. There maybe are many released at the same time, but they are
>all clones of each other and mostly BORING.
The same applies to the old games on 8bit machines. I mean, all
Infocom text adventures were clones of each other, weren't they?
Using a same kind of parser system all the time? And wasn't it
annoying telling that bonehead character in Infocom adventures all
actions very accurately, like "drop the pants", "take flower" "fold
the paper and throw it" etc. etc. etc.
>I walk around shops like EB and
>see row after row of Action/RTS/3d type hybrids which have all the interest
>of watching paint dry.
I see rows of interesting RPGs, adventure games, flight combat sims
etc. You have to know what you are looking for.
>You seem to be contradicting yourself now. If they are so marvellous why are
>you thirsty for more. Could it be todays games are boring, uninteresting and
>lack any lasting interest.
It is only because people demand more today (more competition), and
people who played in 1979 have grown older and have simply grown out
of games. Back in 80s even crude games did well because you couldn't
ask for more.
95% of games released in the eighties were simple and mediocre action
games, but people only remember the good games of that time. Heck,
just look at all those poor Atari 2600 games. I even thought back then
that almost all 2600 games are crap with only few exceptions like HERO
and River Raid. I guess that's why I didn't get that system after all.
joelm...@geocities.com
no...@nowhere.com (Noppa) wrote:
> One good example: Final Fantasy 7 PC. How come the Playstation version
> didn't need that big carton box?
Making it worse Eidos sells all their games in those bizare trapazoidal
boxes. What the PC people need is some standardized package. Having
to sell everything in jewel cases hasn't caused any marketting problem
for PSX games. The only PC games that really need larger boxes are those
with real documentation and many of those could cut the box size in
half or more. Unfortunently, all those marketting weenies keep saying
that they have to have the bix flashy box to make it stand out on the
shelf...
Joel Mathis
Mark Asher
>ma...@cdmnet.com (Mark Asher) wrote:
snip
>One good example: Final Fantasy 7 PC. How come the Playstation version
>didn't need that big carton box?
It's marketing. They want a big box so they have the big retail
presence on the shelves. It's a theft-deterrent, too.
>>Yes and no. The FPS games still sell well, as do the flight-sims.
>>Those are all about graphics, and the hardcore fans don't seem to ever
>
>Quite wrong. Flight sims are more about the enemy AI, campaign system,
>realistic avionics/flight model etc. etc. A good FPS game has great
>enemy AI, interesting and varied missions, lots of surprises etc.
>N64 Goldeneye is a good example, and Half-life has promise in it too.
>
>It is definitely not "all about graphics".
I realize that flight-sims are complex, but the graphics are always at
the forefront. Just look at how Red Baron 2 got ragged on for the lack
of 3D support. Flight-sim fans demand state-of-the-art graphics.
Flight-sims that don't have them risk not doing well in the
marketplace.
Mark Asher
teq...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Mark Asher <ma...@cdmnet.com> wrote:
>I realize that flight-sims are complex, but the graphics are always at
>the forefront. Just look at how Red Baron 2 got ragged on for the lack
>of 3D support. Flight-sim fans demand state-of-the-art graphics.
>Flight-sims that don't have them risk not doing well in the
>marketplace.
I think hardcore flight sim fans really don't care about graphics. Look at
the adoration heaped upon SU-27 Flanker. Very primitive graphics, very
accurate flight modeling, and many die hard fans. Red Baron 2 also got
panned for a mediocre flight model and bugs.
--
Ajaipal Tanwar(teq...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu)
University of Texas @ Austin
Trevor Barrie
>>>But today... no way! The only reason I loved it was because it was the
>>>first and only adventure game back then.
>>
>>2-word parser games are definitely a pain to use nowadays.
>
>I would say the same about almost any parser game. :)
<shrug> Compared to what? Have you ever actually tried to use the
interfaces used in most graphical adventure games?
rco...@servicesoft.com
One of the first computer games was developed by students types at MIT
soon after they got their hands on a DEC PDP-1 (I think?). I can't remember
the exact name, (Not adventure), space something.
The part I always thought was funny was that as soon as these students got
their hands on a computer they could use directly, one of the first things
they did was build a computer game.
In article <6q7nq9$3...@jupiter.planet.net>,
"azog" <az...@planet.net> wrote:
>
> rco...@servicesoft.com wrote in message <6q74u7$b51$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >The game I think that is being mentioned here was just called "adventure".
> >It's pretty old. Part of the legend associated with this game was that the
> >engineers at Data General used it as their first acceptance test when
> >building their first 32 bit mini in "Soul of a new Machine".
>
> I had an old friend, Charley Lasner. If that name rings a bell, then you're
> old :) He is (was?) the god of PDP-8 computers. I shan't get into the
> discussion of PDP-8s or other DEC stuff, but one of the machines he had at
> the time I knew him had a scope as the display, and was used in a court
> decision on what and when the first computer game was... (these were
> machines that lived around 1965, just to give you an idea of the age
> involved. They were also based on a slightly different word length - 36 bits
> being the most popular at the time)
>
> Charley, are you out there?
>
> >
> >
> >
> >In article <slrn6scfgv....@drollsden.ibm.net>,
> > tba...@ibm.net (Trevor Barrie) wrote:
> >> On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 10:05:11 GMT, Noppa <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hear hear. I used to love the first ever text adventure which was
> >> >released (was it called 'The Adventure?'), where you were looking for
> >> >the lost pirate treasure, and after finding it for the first time a
> >> >ghost of a pirate would take it from you and hide it again.
> >>
> >> The first text adventure was Crowley and Woods' "Colossal Cave". The
> >> game you're describing sounds like "Pirate Adventure", which I _think_
> >> was a Scott Adams production (but don't quote me on that). It came
> >> much later.
> >>
> >> >But today... no way! The only reason I loved it was because it was the
> >> >first and only adventure game back then.
> >>
> >> 2-word parser games are definitely a pain to use nowadays.
> >>
> >
Steve Young
Derek Struye - Destroy wrote in message <6q648b$c...@newsops.execpc.com>...
><snip all>
>
>I gotta say " YOUR ON CRACK DUDE!!!!"
>
>There are plenty of high quality games out there.
>
>Personally, I like the technology pushing the industry. I'm so sick of
>square shaped monsters I could puke. The faster the hardware comes out
>the faster those squares become more realisticly round.
>
>Thousands of choices but only maybe 50 'quality' ones. An informed
>gamer knows which ones to buy. :)
Not if you are an adventure lover there isn't. We are lucky if there are
half a dozen top games a year. And from what a previous writer said, that
may well be the number of adventures released in the next year.
Steve
Edward Glamkowski
> >jewelbox. Not sure how that would go over.
>
> I could live with that. In fact I hate it with most PC games where
> they are selling the games in biiiig carton boxes even if the game and
> the little leaflet coming with it didn't need it.
>
> didn't need that big carton box?
A friend of mine just bought the Dragon's Lair compilation (DL1 & 2 and
Space Ace). Came in a really huge box, which contained... a jewelcase!
:p
No manuals, no pamphlets, not even a catalog. Just the one lonely
jewel case in a box as big as a monitor...
Duh.
--
"Have you no sense of decency, sir?
At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Come join my web-ring! http://www.angelfire.com/nj/eglamkowski/null.html
Nathan Mates
Noppa <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>I could live with that. In fact I hate it with most PC games where
>they are selling the games in biiiig carton boxes even if the game and
>the little leaflet coming with it didn't need it.
>One good example: Final Fantasy 7 PC. How come the Playstation version
>didn't need that big carton box?
On the PSX, Sony can set standards for box sizes, etc. Same as
Nintendo does with N64 titles, and Sega for their systems'
titles. There is no such controlling authority for PC titles.
Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/ <*>
# What are the facts? Again and again and again-- what are the _facts_?
# Shun wishful thinking, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors
# think-- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? -R.A. Heinlein
John Tessin
>discussion of PDP-8s or other DEC stuff, but one of the machines he had at
>the time I knew him had a scope as the display, and was used in a court
>decision on what and when the first computer game was... (these were
was that the machine space war was developed on?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Tessin (jte...@skygames.com) Phone: (619)627-9407 x167
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1685 Fax: (619)627-0717
Comments and opinions are mine and in no way represent the opinions of
BlueSky Software. IOW - I think for myself, even when I don't think.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Reitano
<eglam...@angelfire.com> wrote:
>
>A friend of mine just bought the Dragon's Lair compilation (DL1 & 2 and
>Space Ace). Came in a really huge box, which contained... a jewelcase!
>:p
>
>No manuals, no pamphlets, not even a catalog. Just the one lonely
>jewel case in a box as big as a monitor...
>Duh.
I hate to say this, but this has less to do with the gaming companies
as much as the general gamebuying public. Some companies HAVE tried
to sell CD case-packaged games and the damn advertising company
surveys have found that people see them as shareware-9.99 specials.
I haven't seen an article lately, so I don't have hard data to prove
what I say, but if you look back in some of the trade
(advertising/marketing) magazines you'll see the results I spoke of.
I'll be the first to admit that as much as I like to vote with my
wallet, I am less likely to refrain from buying a game just because it
comes in a big box.
Would any of you do without the next Quake/Duke/C&C/Final
Fantasy/Etc... just because it's box was oversized?
Earlier (a few years ago) I thought that the surge in the popularity
of shareware would solve this, especially when I received WINZIP and a
few other shareware programs in the mail in just CD sleeves or, even
better, online from an FTP. But it seems the shareware companies are
seeing higher margins in the software-mall-superstores.
Evan Day
> half or more. Unfortunently, all those marketting weenies keep saying
> that they have to have the bix flashy box to make it stand out on the
> shelf...
Yeah, I just love that Mechwarrior Titanium Trilogy box eating up a good
chunk of my floor space. I guess because it contained three games (in one
4CD jewel box) and a moderate-sized manual (ie bigger than a CD liner)
plus the quick-ref card it had to be 3x as big as your standard over-sized
PC game box. All I gotta do is open up the bix box of Apple // games I
have in the closet to see game boxes that aren't any bigger than they
gotta be - most no wider than the 5.25" disks they contained and no taller
than the manual.
Years ago CD's used to come in these huge, empty cardboard boxes. Someone
finally noticed that all consumers were doing was sending them to the
landfill and changed it. I'm sure something similar will happen with PC
games at some point. Aside from anal people like me who think the boxes
look neat, most people just trash 'em.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll wade through the sea of game boxes on my
floor while looking for that old Knights of Legend manual...
-Livid Dragon (UDIC)
ih...@hormell.winternet.com
> No thank god I'm not "that" old. Actually this is a good game trivia test.
> One of the first computer games was developed by students types at MIT
> soon after they got their hands on a DEC PDP-1 (I think?). I can't remember
> the exact name, (Not adventure), space something.
'Space War'. It was also done as an arcade game in the late 70's and
early 80's. The ships look suspiciously like the Enterprise and a
Klingon D7 (?), but of course they couldn't be because those are
copyrights of Paramont. ;)
--
--
[=========================================================================]
| John 'ihop' Dassow | 'Name!', 'Job!', 'Bye!': the wisdom of the Ages. |
| | |
| <+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+> | Remove 'hormell.' from email address to reply. |
[=========================================================================]
Edward Glamkowski
>
> On Wed, 05 Aug 1998 17:27:21 GMT, Edward Glamkowski
> <eglam...@angelfire.com> wrote:
> >
> >A friend of mine just bought the Dragon's Lair compilation (DL1 & 2 and
> >Space Ace). Came in a really huge box, which contained... a jewelcase!
> >:p
> >
> >No manuals, no pamphlets, not even a catalog. Just the one lonely
> >jewel case in a box as big as a monitor...
> >Duh.
>
> I hate to say this, but this has less to do with the gaming companies
> as much as the general gamebuying public. Some companies HAVE tried
> to sell CD case-packaged games and the damn advertising company
> surveys have found that people see them as shareware-9.99 specials.
> Would any of you do without the next Quake/Duke/C&C/Final
> Fantasy/Etc... just because it's box was oversized?
Yes - I haven't bought a new title for at least a year now.
There's just nothing out there that catches my interest anymore,
big box or not :P
I do buy games though, usually the older stuff, either in the bargain
bins (usually in small boxes) or from a shelf of jewel case "bargain"
games. I have no problem sifting through jewel cases.
It's a very sad thing that people let themselves be influenced into
buying a game just because it has a big, flashy box :P
Stefan
>the
>>gaming public consists of people like you who think everything is rosy, the
>>industry will continue to release uninspiring rubbish like today. With a
>few
>>exceptions, most of the software companies left are the ones who have
>>produced the rubbish that has brought the software industry to where it is
>>today, while all the innovative companies have long since either gone to
>the
>>wall or been sucked into these corperations.
>>
>
>
>I disagree with this. If I think about the "uninspired rubbish" that is
>around today, and then look at the wonder that was 8-bit gaming, I realise
>that we have never had it so good. Sure, there are not as many completely
>new ideas as back then, but we are many thousands of games later. Just like
>there are far fewer original films, and those that are original generally
>suck. Why? Because quite often there is a reason that something hasn't
>been done before. Originality is not the defining factor in whether a game
>is good. You only have to look at games like Starcraft, Masters of Magic,
>Final Fantasy 7 etc. I will play any of these games, any day over the likes
>of Sabre Wulf, Atic Atac, Jet Set Willy etc.
I remember discovering NES emulators a couple of years ago.. Remember
Excitebike? Mario 3? Legend of Zelda? Remember some more recent PC
games? MDK? Redneck Rampage? Earth 2140?
So what if we have nice graphics and sound? It just means we can say
'wow, pretty' before we get bored and turn it off.
Remember back in the early '90's when games weren't all either RTS,
sports or 3D <ugh> shooters?
New ideas aren't the problem, it's that every damn game in the same
genre does the SAME THING! RTS - you've got your status bar on the
right half of the screen where you can build and control units. You've
got two (Sometimes 3) sides who all have units that are the same
thing. You wind up with small variations in firepower, attack
abilities and cost, but they still have the same amount of units that
can do the same thing. It's just not fun.
az...@my-dejanews.com
jte...@skygames.com (John Tessin) wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Aug 1998 15:32:54 -0400, "azog" <az...@planet.net> wrote:
>
> >discussion of PDP-8s or other DEC stuff, but one of the machines he had at
> >the time I knew him had a scope as the display, and was used in a court
> >decision on what and when the first computer game was... (these were
>
> was that the machine space war was developed on?
I'm not sure. I last talked to Charley over 6 years ago. If you pop on over
to alt.folklore.computers, they're sure to have more info. I haven't lurked
in afc for a long time, so I dunno what it's like there anymore.
Ray@BioWare
>tba...@ibm.net (Trevor Barrie) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 10:05:11 GMT, Noppa <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hear hear. I used to love the first ever text adventure which was
>>>released (was it called 'The Adventure?'), where you were looking for
>>>the lost pirate treasure, and after finding it for the first time a
>>>ghost of a pirate would take it from you and hide it again.
>>
>>The first text adventure was Crowley and Woods' "Colossal Cave". The
>>game you're describing sounds like "Pirate Adventure", which I _think_
>>was a Scott Adams production (but don't quote me on that). It came
>>much later.
>
>The name "Pirate Adventure" does not ring a bell at all. I don't
>recall playing an adventure game by that name. Colossal Cave does ring
>a bell, I have probably played that at some point.
Pirate's Adventure was a classic from good old Scott Adams. I
remember it well - it was the reason that I'm doing what I'm doing
today (that, and Wizardry...ah, Wizardry... :) I remember playing
Pirate's Adventure on the first Apple II (not a IIe, not even a II+ -
a real Apple II, one of the first ever made) - no disk drives back in
1979, only a cassette tape drive. Ever try one of those? You had to
wait about five minutes to boot, and loading a program was a major
pain in the ass - 10, 15 minutes not counting retries due to noise on
the audio tapes. And to think I'm only 30... yikes!
But it was worth it! Brings a tear to me eyes, it does...
;)
ray
>But I could swear the name of that ancient text adventure was
>something very simple like "The Adventure". It wasn't running on any
>microcomputer of that time (CP/M machines), but in a biiiig mainframe
>machine at the university, to which I was connected with a very slow
>(300bps?) modem and a Kaypro or Osborne CP/M machine. It was the very
>first text adventure game I remember ever seeing.
>
>>>But today... no way! The only reason I loved it was because it was the
>>>first and only adventure game back then.
>>
>>2-word parser games are definitely a pain to use nowadays.
>
>I would say the same about almost any parser game. :)
>
------------------------
dr ray muzyka
cfo and joint-ceo, bioware corp.
producer, baldur's gate
www.bioware.com
www.interplay.com/bgate
------------------------
Noppa
>On 4 Aug 1998 02:11:37 GMT, tba...@ibm.net (Trevor Barrie) uttered:
>
>>The first text adventure was Crowley and Woods' "Colossal Cave". The
>>game you're describing sounds like "Pirate Adventure", which I _think_
>>was a Scott Adams production (but don't quote me on that). It came
>>much later.
>
>Yup, sounds about right. Scott Adams' games had simple parsers, IIRC;
>but then, nobody (except perhaps Level 9 and Melbourne House) tried to
>match Infocom's.
How about Magnetic Scrolls or whatever it was called?
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
>How about Magnetic Scrolls or whatever it was called?
Magnetic Scrolls' games... which ones were that? The Pawn and Thieves'
Guild? Published by Rainbird?
--
"I had to upgrade the memory of my 8088 from to 256K to 640K just to play [Demon's Winter]."
- gmad...@usa.net
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen http://www.pvv.org/%7etoriver/
joelm...@geocities.com
ih...@hormell.winternet.com wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg rco...@servicesoft.com wrote:
> > No thank god I'm not "that" old. Actually this is a good game trivia test.
> > One of the first computer games was developed by students types at MIT
> > soon after they got their hands on a DEC PDP-1 (I think?). I can't
remember
> > the exact name, (Not adventure), space something.
>
> 'Space War'. It was also done as an arcade game in the late 70's and
> early 80's. The ships look suspiciously like the Enterprise and a
> Klingon D7 (?), but of course they couldn't be because those are
> copyrights of Paramont. ;)
I believe that it even dates back to the 60's when some guys in a lab
wired up a pointing stick as an input device for a simple little game
they made to entertain visitors.
Joel Mathis
Ole Ingar Bentstuen
> On Thu, 06 Aug 1998 08:16:36 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Noppa) uttered:
>
> >How about Magnetic Scrolls or whatever it was called?
>
> Magnetic Scrolls' games... which ones were that? The Pawn and Thieves'
> Guild? Published by Rainbird?
Hi Tor Iver.
The Pawn
Fish
Jinxter
++
Best adv. games on C64/Amiga in late 80's.
Those were the days...
Too bad we can't find games like that today.
-Ingar Bentstuen.